R.Rajesh, Aged 36 Yrs., v. The Presiding Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.07.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P.No.3647 of 2017 R.Rajesh ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore.
2. The Management of Lotus Footwear Enterprises Ltd., 3-B, Sipcot Industries Ltd., Mangal Village, Mathur Post, Cheyyur-631 701.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the award pronounced in ID.No.31 of 2015 dated 17.03.2016 and quash the same and direct the second respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service with all other attendant benefits. For Petitioner :
Mr.T.Ramkumar For Respondents :
R1- Court Mr.M.Kandasamy, R2 1/7
ORDER
The petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the first respondent in connection with the award pronounced in I.D.No.31 of 2015 dated 17.03.2016 and direct the second respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service with all other attendant benefits.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a workman, employed by the second respondent management. The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent on 23.05.2009 and employed continously till the date of his dismissal on 17.04.2014. The petitioner was a committee member of the union viz., United Labour Union and raised vioce for grievance of the workmen and against the various unfair labour practices committed by the second respondent. On 21.03.2014, due to wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the co-workers, the second respondent Management issued suspension order dated 21.03.2014. Thereafter, the respondent Management issued a charge memo dated 19.04.2014 with false allegations, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.04.2014. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the second respondent Management dismissed him from the service on 17.10.2014. Against the said order, the petitioner has raised an Industrial 2/7
dispute before the first respondent in ID No.31 of 2015. The Labour Court has dismissed the petitioners petition on 17.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner was a permanent employee of the second respondent. Due to between the petitioner and the co-worker, a dispute has been arose. In the course of the enquiy, the petitioner had requested the enquiry officer, to direct the Management to produce the video graph taken by the Management. However, the Enquiry Officer has not considered his request. However, the first respondent, without excersing its power under Section 11A of the I.D. Act, has given erroneous findings which are liable to be interfered with by this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in manufacture of Foorware, having their facory situated at Cheyyar Taluk. About 7000 workmen are employed in the factory. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into service in the year 2009. On 3/7
21.03.2014, the petitioner was employed in the general shift and the petitioner has assigned the job of lace loosening job. At the time, the supervisor viz., Prabakaran found the petitioner doing his job slowly and improperly. When he enquired about the same, the petitioner scolded the supervisor in filthy language. The incident happened infront of one Suresh, who is the Manager of Packing Department. Since the allegation against the petitioner was serious in nature, the respondent Management issued a suspension order on 21.03.2014 and subsequently, issued charge memo on 19.04.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.04.2014 denying his charges levelled against him. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appoined by the Management and the petitioner has also participated in the enquiry and sufficient opportunities were given to him.
In the enquiry,the respondent management examined 8 witnesses and marked 13 documents. However, no witness was examined and three documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 19.09.2014 holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the respondent sent show cause notices dated 22.09.2014 and 06.10.2014 respectvely and the petitioner submitted his reply dated 01.10.2014 and 11.10.2014 and the same was not satisfied.
termination order dated 17.10.2014 terminating the services of the petitioner. Such facts have elaborately discussed by the Labour Court and the Labour Court, after conducting elaborate enquiry, has rightly dismissed the ID which was filed by the petitioner, which does not warrants any interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. From the facts of the case there can be no doubt that the order was in the nature of punishment and the Labour Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the termination order issued by the Management dated 17.10.2014 and thereby, terminating the petitioner from the employment is well within the order. The Labour Court has rightly passed an order by adducing evidence and examining the witnesses and the Labour Court on its own appraisal of that evidence could arrive at a conclusion that the order of the company was justified. The Labour Court was agreed that on the facts and circumstances of the case the company was justified in making the order and therefore declined to order reinstatement. Though the order was punitive in nature and the enquiry held was in proper and the company had terminated the 5/7
services of the petitioner that termination was held to be justified. To that extent the order passed by the Labour Court is confirmed and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 20.07.2023 rli Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order Netrual Citation Case : Yes / No To The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore.
6/7
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rli W.P.No.3647 of 2017 25.07.2023 7/7