The President, v. The Presiding Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.No.28332 of 2016 The President, Gopalapuram Village Panchayath, Gopalapuram Post & Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District - 606 103.
...Petitioner
Vs 1.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore & District.
2.
The Block Development Officer, District Rural Development, Cuddalore & District.
3.
R.Periasamy
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Labour Court, Cuddalore in proceedings I.D.No.167 of 2003 in the order dated 28.10.2015 by the 1st respondent and quash the same. 1/7
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anabayachozhan For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.GP, for R2 : Mr.M.R.Chellappan, for R3
ORDER
This Writ petition has been seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.10.2015 made in I.D.No.167 of 2003.
2. The case of the petitioner panchayat is that, for the purpose of providing drinking water to the village concerned, the 3rd respondent was appointed as a Motor Pump Operator on 19.05.1997. That being so, as the 3rd respondent did not operate the motor wantonly on various occasions and as he failed to maintain the water tap, it led to breaking of the pipeline and various other difficulties and aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd respondent, the village people gave various representations to the petitioner panchayat seeking to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the representations, the petitioner panchayat, after conducing council meeting, removed the 3rd respondent from service. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the 3rd respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.167 2/7
of 2003 before the 1st respondent seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 08.09.2003. After contest, the 1st respondent passed the present impugned award dated 28.10.2015, directing the petitioner panchayat to reinstate the 3rd respondent with back wages and continuity of service. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the 3rd respondent committed various misconducts, for which, he was terminated from service and the service of the 3rd respondent is governed by various Government orders and by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1403 Labour Department dated 26.6.1984, the 3rd respondent is not coming under the labour category. While so, instead of approaching this Court by filing a writ petition, the 3rd respondent raised an industrial dispute, which is not maintainable, as the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. However, without considering the above said facts, the Labour Court allowed the dispute raised by the 3rd respondent, vide present impugned order which is legally unsustainable and accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders. 3/7
4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that, the 3rd respondent was appointed as a Motor Pump Operator in the petitioner panchayat in the year 1997. While so, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner panchayat removed the 3rd respondent from service. Though the petitioner panchayat raised various allegations as against the 3rd respondent, however, no documents were marked by the petitioner panchayat before the Labour Court and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner pachayat and it miserably failed to prove the allegations made against the 3rd respondent before the Labour Court. However, the 3rd respondent marked Ex.W.1 to W.9 in order to prove his innocence and examined himself before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, after careful consideration of all the materials placed before it, passed the present award, which does not require interference of this Court.
5. On the above said contentions, heard learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material documents placed on record.
4/7
6. For the alleged misconducts, though the petitioner panchayat terminated the 3rd respondent workman from service, vide order dated 08.09.2003, however, no charge memo or enquiry report or any other documentary evidence was filed by the petitioner panchayat before the Labour Court to prove the allegations made against the 3rd respondent workman. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the 1st respondent has rightly allowed the dispute raised by the 3rd respondent and directed the petitioner panchayat to reinstate the 3rd respondent, vide present impugned award. When law contemplates following of principles of natural justice before terminating the service of an workman, the employer is supposed to follow the same and in the case on hand, there is no material to show that principles of natural justice was complied with.
As stated above, no material has been placed before the Labour Court to substantiate the charges levelled against the workman and such being the case, the findings recorded and the order passed by the Labour Court cannot be interfered with, as the same does not suffer any perversity.
5/7
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs, Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 10.07.2023 skt Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No To 1.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore & District.
2.
The Block Development Officer, District Rural Development, Cuddalore & District.
6/7
M.DHANDAPANI., J.
skt and WMP.No.28332 of 2016 10.07.2023 7/7