Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 1241
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore & Another - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.14291 OF 1997
Decided On : 29 September 2004
The importance of conducting a proper enquiry in cases of dismissal or discharge of an employee, as established in Cooper Engineering Limited v. P.P.Mundhe (1975 LAB.I.C.1441).
Headnote:
Certiorari - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 2A(2) - The court discussed the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 2(s) and relevant case law to determine the status of the second respondent as a workman. The court also considered the principles of natural justice in domestic enquiries as established in Cooper Engineering Limited v. P.P.Mundhe (1975 LAB.I.C.1441). The court found that no proper enquiry was conducted by the petitioner before dismissing the second respondent, and upheld the Award of the first respondent Labour Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash an Award made by the Labour Court, which directed reinstatement and back-wages for the second respondent who was terminated from service due to alleged misappropriation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no proper enquiry was conducted by the petitioner before dismissing the second respondent, and upheld the Award of the first respondent Labour Court.
Issues: The status of the second respondent as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and the adequacy of the enquiry conducted by the petitioner before dismissing the second respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second respondent should be considered a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and emphasized the importance of conducting a proper enquiry in cases of dismissal or discharge of an employee.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award dated 13.12.1995 made in ID.No.354 of 1992 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore, the first respondent, and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was the Apprentice Trainee Shop Assistant in Amudham Village Shop 192, Aladi Karuppur from 1.2.1979 to 30.1.1987 under Petitioner's Retail Trade Development Training Programme; that since he failed to remit the collections on 30.1.1997, the shop was inspected by the Area Supervisor and found that stocks of certain essential articles to the value of Rs.5324.75 were in deficit; that he was relieved of his duties on 30.1.1987; that a charge memo. dated 27.11.1987 was issued to the second respondent called upon him to explain about the shortages and stock deficit reported to have been found at the time of inspection on 30.1.1987; that the second respondent by his letters dated 21.11.1987 and 1.12.1987 addressed to the Senior Regional Manager has made certain allegations against the Area Supervisor; that the second respondent has also submitted his explanation dated 16.12.1987.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that an enquiry was held by Thiru.Chinnakkannu, Sub-Regional Manager, Tiruvarur on 21.12.1987; that the Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry report dated 15.3.1988 stating that the charge against the second respondent stood proved and that the report of the Assistant Manager, who enquired into the allegations of the second respondent against the Area Supervisor were baseless; that on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner passed an order terminating the second respondent from service from 31.1.1987.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the second respondent filed a petition before the Labour Officer under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947; that the Labour Officer by his report dated 7.9.1990 reported failure of conciliation, against which the second respondent raised Industrial Dispute before the first respondent Labour Court under Sec.2A(2) of the Act; that the first respondent in and by the impugned Award dated 13.12.1995 made in ID.No.354 of 1992 directed reinstatement with continuity of service of the second respondent and back-wages and attendant benefits only from the date of his raising Industrial Dispute i.e. 5.10.1990 with liberty to the petitioner to proceed against the second respondent in respect of the misappropriation in accordance with law. It is only testifying the validity of the said order of the Labour Court, the petitioner has come forward to file this Writ Petition praying for the relief extracted supra.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent as well and the materials placed on record have also been perused.
6. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the second respondent was a Shop Assistant Trainee under Petitioner's Retail Trade Development Training Programme and paid a monthly stipend, would not be a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite a decision reported in Tungabhadra Sugar Works (Private) Ltd., v. Labour Court, Mangalore and another(1983 II L.L.N 422) wherein it has been held:
" It is clear from the definition of "workman" in S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that any person, including an apprentice, can be regarded as a "workman" if he is employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward. In other words, the existence of the relationship of an employer and an employee is of the essence of the matter. Any person, whether he is an apprentice or not, can be regarded as a workman only if he is employing in an industry to do an
