Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4365
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
State Express Transport Corporation rep.by its Managing Director & Another
Versus
The Presiding Officer
W.P.Nos. 13214 of 1999 and 22837 of 2006
Decided On : 27-11-2008
For the Appearing Parties:V.R. Kamalanathan, Ajay Khose, Advocates.
The alleged misconduct, even if committed outside the employer's premises, can be considered if proved in an enquiry. The court can set aside orders due to errors of jurisdiction and grant appropriate relief based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33(C)(2) - Standing Order 16(c) and 16(d) - The court discussed the computation petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act and the misconduct allegations against the workman under Standing Order 16(c) and 16(d). The court held that the misconduct, even if committed outside the premises of the employer, can be considered if it is proved in an enquiry. The order of the Tribunal was set aside due to an error of jurisdiction, and the workman was granted all terminal benefits including pension as if he was retired from service on a specific date.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was reinstated by the petitioner Corporation but subsequently retired. The workman filed a computation petition claiming backwages, and the Labour Court computed the payable amount. The workman also filed a writ petition seeking direction for payment. The Tribunal held that the alleged misconduct did not constitute a ground for disciplinary action, and the Approval Petition filed by the Corporation was negatived.
Finding of the Court:
The court disagreed with the Tribunal's order, set it aside, and dismissed the writ petition. However, the court granted all terminal benefits to the workman, including pension, as if he was retired on a specific date.
Issues: The issues revolved around the computation petition, alleged misconduct of the workman, and the Tribunal's order on the Approval Petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alleged misconduct, even if committed outside the employer's premises, can be considered if proved in an enquiry. The Tribunal's order was set aside due to an error of jurisdiction, and the workman was granted all terminal benefits including pension.
Final Decision: The Labour Court's order in the Claim Petition was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. However, the workman was granted all terminal benefits, including pension, as if he was retired on a specific date.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 08. 1999. On the same day, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, when the vacate stay application was filed by the second respondent workman, this Court recorded that since the second respondent had already been reinstated and since the Tribunal refused to grant approval, no interim stay can be granted. Thus, the interim stay already granted was vacated.
3. It is seen from the records produced by the petitioner Corporation that the second respondent was reinstated by an order dated 09. 1997. The second respondent had also joined the service. As the second respondent had reached the age of his superannuation, with effect from 31. 2002 he was also retired from service vide an order dated 21. 2002.
4. Since this Court refused to grant interim stay, the second respondent moved the Labour Court with a computation petition under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act claiming the backwages payable pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in Approval Petition No.52/94 dated 112. 1996. The said petition was taken on file as C.P.No.782 of 1997 by the Labour Court.
5. The Labour Court issued notice to the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation filed a counter statement, dated nil" (September 2000) before the Labour Court. In that statement, they had admitted that the workman was entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,41,140/- together with a sum of Rs.11,696/-in respect of Provident Fund. Therefore, the workman filed a memo before the Labour Court agreeing to receive the said amount. The Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the admission made by the Transport Corporation, computed a sum of Rs.1,52,836/-as payable by its order dated 25. 2005.
6. As stated already, the second respondent workman got retired on 31. 2002. It was claimed that he was paid pension at the rate of Rs.1500/-for few months and subsequently that was also stopped. Since there was no stay granted against the Approval Petition in W.P.No.13214 of 1999 and the Transport Corporation not implementing the order of the Labour Court in C.P.No.782 of 1997 and did not pay the admitted amounts, the second respondent filed W.P.No.22837 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the Transport Corporation to pay the amount computed by the Labour Court. That writ petition was directed to be posted along with earlier writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation took notice in the said writ petition. In view of the interconnectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together. The petitioner Transport Corporation was also directed to produce the original records filed before the Tribunal, which was duly circulated by the learned counsel for the Corporation.
7. It is seen from the records of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal that the workman though was working as a driver in the Transport Corporation, a complaint was received from one Pathrose that he had received Rs.40,000/-promising to get him a job in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He cheated him by giving some forged documents as if they were the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The Tribunal held that since the Standing Orders of the Corporation only enumerated theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employers business or property", the allegation against the second respondent may not be a misconduct, over which the Transport Corporation can take disciplinary action.
8. Admittedly, as the misconduct had taken place outside the premises of the Corporation and those misconducts are not enumerated under the Standing Orders, no action can be taken against the second respondent workman. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited -vs- Labour Court, Meerut and others reported in 1984-I-LLJ 16. The Tribunal held that only if a misconduct is committed within the premises of the employer, during working hours and in connection with the employment, then a
