The Management v. P.Ravi P.F.No 3669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA The Management of Waterfall Estate (East) Pvt. Ltd., Waterfall Estate Post, Via. Pollachi, Coimbatore District - 642 105 Represented by its Group Manager - Plantations ... Petitioner Vs.

P.Ravi ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the orders dated 26.02.2019 in A.P.No.45/2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anandakrishnan for M/s.Agam Legal Advocates For Respondent : No appearance

ORDER

The respondent was employed as a General Worker in the petitioner Company. The writ petitioner is engaged in Tea Plantation. On 08.02.2005, the Management of the Company found that one R.Gopal had stolen tea bags from the factory. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 18.02.2005 stating that he is also involved in the theft committed by one Gopal. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the respondent were proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the respondent and after getting explanation from him, he was dismissed from service.

2. The Management Officials filed an Approval Petition under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in A.P.No.45/2010. The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai vide his orders dated 26.02.2019 dismissed the petition on the ground that the Management has not framed a specific charge against the respondent / workman. It is

settled law that unless the charges are specific, a person cannot be found guilty.

3. Mr.G.Anandakrishnan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the charges were framed against the respondent based on the report submitted by the Management and that the respondent was involved in the act of committing theft.

4. In the instant case as already observed, it is clear that the charges are not specific and therefore, the enquiry based on a vague charge is totally erroneous. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The orders dated 26.02.2019 in A.P.No.45/2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.12.2023 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

R. HEMALATHA, J.

mtl 11.12.2023