The Management Of v. The Presiding Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.NO.17169 OF 2013 The Management of ADVANI OERLIKON Ltd., Melakottiyur, [via] Vandaloor, Chennai - 600 048.

... Petitioner .Vs.

1. The Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Compound, Chennai.

2. Thiru K.K.Namboodri ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the Award of the first respondent, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.266 of 2001 dated 24.11.2012 For Petitioner :

M/s.Meenakshisundaram For Respondent :

R1 - Court R2 - No Appearance

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have ordered for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- since the charges against the petitioner mentioned was one of an unauthorized absence for a period of 55 days which is grave in nature and therefore, the finding that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges, is not correct.

2. Though the second respondent is served and his name is also printed in the cause list, none appears on behalf of the second respondent.

3. Under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court will be well within its powers to consider as to whether the punishment awarded is proportionate to the charges or not. But in a catena of judgment, these powers have restricted such discretion and has been held that such discretion should be exercised in a judicious manner. In case, the Labour Court was of the view that the charges are disproportionate, it ought to have dealt with the nature of the charges and then analyze the same with the punishment imposed. Merely stating that the punishment which is disproportionate to the charges alone, will not suffice and cannot be termed to be passed in a judicious manner. If such discretion is not exercised in a judicious manner under the powers vested under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same cannot be sustained.

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, they had deposited the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Labour Court.

5. In the light of the above observation, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 24.11.2012 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application before the concerned Labour Court seeking for withdrawal of the deposited amount and the Labour Court shall endeavor to pass appropriate orders, permitting the petitioner to withdraw the deposited amount, preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Sni

To The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Compound, Chennai.

+1cc to Mr.M.Suresh, Advocate, S.R.No.13195 W.P.NO.17169 OF 2013 SVI(CO) PBS/18/03/2022