← Library
Madras High CourtWP/38969/2015disposed of with direction

Sri Sarada Textile Processers v. The Presiding Officer

2025-03-14Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-03-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and M.P.No.1 of 2015

1. Sri Sarada Textile Processers Pvt Ltd, 707/1, Urachikottai, Bhavani - 638 302 Erode District, Rep by its Managing Director Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Presiding Officer Labourt court, Salem 2.K.K. Udayakumar, S/o. Kesavan, No.162, Royal Theatre Street, Bhavani, Erode District Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling to call for the records and quash the award dated 15.10.2014 in I.D. No. 139/2006 on the file of the First Respondent, The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Ravi Sr. Counsel For M/s.Gupta And Ravi For Respondent(s):

M/s.K.V.Shanmuganathan for R2 R1-labour Court

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the award dated 15.10.2014 in I.D. No. 139/2006 on the file of The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was running a factory at Bhavani, Erode District and is engaged in the process of bleaching, dyeing etc. of clothes. The second respondent herein was employed as a Watchman in the petitioner management. Since he had stolen coconuts from the factory premises, the second respondent was called and enquired by one Velumani, Supervisor in the factory about the theft of coconut and the second respondent has also admitted the said theft. Due to which, he was suspended from 02.03.1998 till 07.03.1998. Subsequently, on 25.06.1998 the second respondent joined the duty, during which time he was found sleeping. Consequently, a charge sheet dated 27.06.1998 was issued to the second respondent. However,

the second respondent did not show any interest in participating in the enquiry. Hence, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the second respondent was found guilty of the charges leveled against him. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Erode who submitted his failure report on 26.02.1999. After the receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, the second respondent has filed a petition before the Labour Court on 26.07.2006 after a lapse of eight years. However, the Labour Court vide order dated 15.10.2014 ordered for reinstatement of second respondent with continuity of service and 20% backwages. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner management submits that though the second respondent was employed as Watchman in the petitioner management, he was not diligent in his duty and had committed various misconducts like theft of coconut. On the sole ground, the second respondent was dismissed from service. Moreso, though the order of dismissal was passed on 31.08.1998, the second respondent slept over for a period of eight years and

raised the industrial dispute only in the year 2006 which cannot be sustained. The Labour Court without appreciating the evidence placed before it, had ordered for reinstatement with 20% backwages along with continuity of service which is per se unsustainable. Therefore, he prayed to allow this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent reached the age of superannuation. Hence, he prayed this Court to fix fair compensation to the second respondent in lieu of reinstatement to be payable by the petitioner management.

nd respondent entered the service of the petitioner

5. Admittedly, the 2 management as Watchman on 01.07.1998 and on 31.08.1998, he was dismissed from service on the ground that he committed theft of coconuts from the factory premises. Thereafter the second respondent raised an industrial dispute in the year 2006, however the Labour Court vide order dated 15.10.2014 has ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service along with 20% backwages. Assailing which the present writ petition has been filed.

6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this nd respondent has reached the age of superannuation and is no writ petition, the 2 longer in service. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the order of reinstatement passed by the labour court is confirmed. Hence, in order to strike nd balance in between the parties and considering the rendered by the 2 respondent, this Court is inclined to fix a reasonable compensation in his favour.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as lumpsum nd respondent, in lieu of reinstatement, in full quit, within compensation to the 2 a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-03-2025 RAP Index:Yes/No

To 1.The Presiding Officer Labourt court, Salem

M.DHANDAPANI J.

RAP 14-03-2025