J.Packiaraj v. The Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA J.Packiaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (Chennai) Limited, Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Award, dated 19.09.2019 of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai passed in I.D.No.1 of 2016, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to sanction two increments to the petitioner from the punishment order, dated 28.08.1998 with other attendant benefits and award costs.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu For Respondent : Mr.R.Balaji, Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner was working as a spare conductor under the respondent Management. On 21.03.1997, the Writ Petitioner approached the controller requesting the latter to allot duty to him. Since no regular driver or conductor was on leave, he was not given any work, as a result of which, the Writ Petitioner picked up quarrel with the Controller and also snatched the Control Chart and attempted to sign on a specific route. He also abused the Management in filthy language. Therefore, the respondent Management issued a charge memo and conducted a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer in his report has held that all the charges against the Writ Petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for two years. The matter went to Conciliation officer who referred the same to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennai as I.D.No.1 of 2016 wherein the Government had requested to answer the following issue:

(i) Whether the demand of the Union that the order dated 28.08.1998 regarding punishment of

postponement of annual increment with cumulative effect for two years awarded to Mr.Packiyaraj, Conductor (Emp.No.12330) should be set aside is justifiable? If so to pass necessary orders.

2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennai after examining the witnesses on both sides had held that the stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect imposed by the Management is perfectly in order and dismissed the reference made by the General Secretary, State Transport Employees Union (CITU). Now the present Writ Petition is filed by the employee.

3. Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the charges framed by the Management and that the Writ Petitioner was not allotted any work. He, therefore prayed this Court to set aside the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.1/2016.

4. Per contra, Mr.R.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Management contended that the Writ Petitioner had already retired on superannuation on May 2013 and the State Transport Employees Union had raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.1/2016. In fact, the Union had gone for Conciliation and subsequently, the Government had referred the same to the Labour Court. According to him, the enquiry was conducted properly and that the punishment imposed on the Writ Petitioner is perfectly in order.

5. A perusal of the entire records would show that the Writ Petitioner ought to have reported for duty on 21.03.1997 at 12.00 noon. However he was late by 30 minutes and requested the Inspector/Controller to provide him duty on a specific route. It is also seen that he snatched the Control Chart to find out whether any work is available in the said route. He had demanded the Inspector to provide the spare attendance Register even though he was late for duty. When it was denied by the Inspector, he had abused the Management. In such circumstances, the charge Memo was issued to him and a domestic

enquiry was also conducted. In the domestic enquiry, charges against the Writ Petitioner were held to be proved and there is nothing to show that the domestic enquiry was conducted without giving any reasonable opportunity to the Writ petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect as per the Certified Standing Orders. In the circumstances, the dismissal of I.D.No.1/2016 is perfectly in order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.

07.11.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order vum To The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (Chennai) Limited, Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

R. HEMALATHA, J.

vum 07.11.2023