Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 789
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
G. Lakshmanan
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Coimbatore & Another
W.P.No.911 of 2006 & W.P.M.P.No.1046 of 2006
Decided On :24-02-2010
For the Petitioner:A. Bobblie, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, R. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
Failure to participate in a domestic enquiry and timely raise an industrial dispute can impact the outcome of a labour dispute case.
Headnote:
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Labour Dispute - Regulation Nos.6, 14 and 16 - The court discussed the unfair practices of the management, domestic enquiry proceedings, and the petitioner's failure to participate in the enquiry. The court upheld the decision of the Labour Court, confirming the petitioner's removal from service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a Cooperative Bank, was removed from service based on charges of indiscipline. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, challenging the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the punishment imposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to participate in the domestic enquiry and did not establish the unfairness of his removal from service. The court upheld the Labour Court's decision.
Issues: Fairness of domestic enquiry, proportionality of punishment, timeliness of raising industrial dispute, and maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to participate in the domestic enquiry and the timeliness of raising the industrial dispute were crucial factors in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Labour Court's decision confirming the petitioner's removal from service was upheld. No costs were awarded.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the records relating to the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 5.10.2004, made in I.D.No.13 of 1999, and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner, with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined the second respondent Cooperative Bank in the month of June, 1975, as a Senior Assistant. Since then he has been discharging his duties efficiently, without any blemish. However, since the petitioner has been raising certain issues, with regard to the unfair practices being followed by the management of the second respondent Bank, in giving promotion to the petitioner, he has been victimized. The second respondent Bank had issued a charge memo, dated 6.3.1993, alleging that the petitioner had acted against the regulations relating to the service conditions of the employees and that he had made false reports to higher authorities against the management of the second respondent Bank. Such acts of the petitioner amounted to `indiscipline’, as per Regulation Nos.6, 14 and 16.
3. The second respondent Bank had been aggrieved by the representation, dated 7.2.1992, made by the petitioner to the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell, pointing out the irregularities in the functioning of the second respondent Bank. As the petitioner was awaiting the outcome of the enquiry, based on the communication sent from the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell, the petitioner did not submit any explanation to the charge memo, dated 6.3.1993. The respondent had initiated a domestic enquiry, based on the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner had sent a number of letters requesting the enquiry officer and the management of the second respondent Bank to furnish to the petitioner, the copies of the documents relied upon by the second respondent Bank, to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. However, the copies of the documents were not furnished to the petitioner. Further, the request made by the petitioner for engaging a legally trained person, to defend him during the domestic enquiry, had not been accepted. The enquiry officer had posted the enquiry, on 30.6.1995. In spite of the request made by the petitioner to postpone the enquiry due to his illness, the enquiry officer had not done so. On 30.6.1995, the enquiry officer had proceeded with the enquiry, in a biased manner and had held that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the petitioner had been removed from service, by the second respondent Bank, on 3.5.1996.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.13 of 1999. The petitioner had raised a preliminary issue challenging the domestic enquiry on the ground that it was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, the first respondent Labour Court, without considering the materials on record, had held, by its order, dated 19.12.2003, that the domestic enquiry had been conducted fairly and properly. Thereafter, the first respondent Labour Court had proceeded with the enquiry.
5. The petitioner had submitted that he had never intended to malign the image of the second respondent Bank. The action of the petitioner, in bringing to light certain irregularities committed by the management of the second respondent Bank cannot amount to indiscipline, as per regulation Nos.6, 14 and 16. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate. The first respondent Labour Court, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner had passed the award, dated 5.10.2004, in I.D.No.13 of 1999, confirming the order passed by the second respondent Bank, removing the petitioner from service.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf o
