Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
The Management, World Vision India, Represented by S.G. Priya Livingston, Kodambakkam – Appellant
Versus
M. Palanisamy & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 36694 of 2019 & W.M.P. Nos. 31539 & 11170 of 2017
Decided on : 01-10-2020
For the Appellant :M. Vijayan for M/s. King and Patridge, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Gopika, S. Sathia Chandran, adv
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Labour Court to consider all material on record and pass reasoned orders in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court discussed the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the production of evidence. The impugned award was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court, which directed the reinstatement of the respondent with backwages. The petitioner contended that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, while the respondent challenged the fairness of the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court had overlooked the 105 pages of the enquiry report filed by the respondent as an exhibit. The impugned award was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the production of evidence before the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court had not considered the material on record and set aside the impugned award. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was ordered on the terms that the reinstatement of the respondent would continue until the disposal of the case.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to I.D.No.276 of 2012 on the file of the Second Respondent, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 600 104 and quash the award dated 28.06.2016 made in I.D.No.276 of 2012.)
(through video conference)
Heard Mr. M. Vijayan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Gopika, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent through video conference and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The chronological sequence of events leading to the filing of the Writ Petition has been aptly capsuled by this Court in the self-explanatory order dated 24.10.2016, at the time of admission of the Writ Petition, as follows:-
“The Management is before this Court challenging the award of the 2nd respondent/I Additional Labour Court, Chennai dated 28.06.2016 passed in I.D.No.276 of 2012, whereby, the 1st respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and to pay 25% of the backwages from the date of termination viz., 19.03.2012 till the date of reinstatement.
2. The 1st respondent was working as Community Development Coordinator for the petitioner from May 2004. While he was working as such, a show cause notice dated 23.02.2011 was issued to the respondent with certain charges and after obtaining his explanation on 28.02.2011, since the same was not satisfactory, the petitioner Management issued a charge sheet on 12.05.2011, informing him that a domestic enquiry will be conducted on 06.06.2011. The main charge against the 1st respondent is that he collected Rs.5,000/- from 39 beneficiaries without permission from the petitioner and he absented himself without obtaining permission from 08.02.2011 to 11.02.2011. The petitioner Management appointed an Enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry. The 1st respondent participated in the enquiry. Totally 7 witnesses were examined and 38 documents were marked. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer gave a positive enquiry report on 14.12.2011. Thereafter, after issuing the 2nd show cause notice dated 15.02.2012 enclosing a copy of the enquiry officer-s report, and after getting the explanation and after providing sufficient opportunity to the 1st respondent, he was terminated from service.
3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, initiated conciliation proceedings, which ended in failure. On reference, the matter came up before the Labour Court. After enquiry, the labour Court reinstated the workman with backwages. The said award is being challenged before this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court called for the entire records and perused the same.
4. Before the Labour Court, the counsel for the 1st respondent/Workman, has made the endorsement on 25.11.2013 itself as follows:-
We are accepting the fairness enquiry. Further, this matter to be continued under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”.
Therefore, it is evident that the workman has already accepted the enquiry conducted by the petitioner was fair and proper.
5. On 06.01.2014, both the parties have filed their documents before the Labour Court, which has also recorded the said fact in the notes paper.
6. On 09.12.2015, the Labour Court has recorded the following:-
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the fairness of domestic enquiry. In such an event, this Court ought to have framed the preliminary issue regarding it. But, it did not frame the preliminary issue.
Hence the following preliminary issue is framed:-
1. Whether the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner.
Both parties to state whether the evidence produced by them is sufficient to determine the preliminary issue. Call on 15.12.2015.
Further arguments, if any, by them”.
7. It is not understandable as to how the learned Judge, contrary to the endorsement of the respondent/workman made on 25.11.2013, recorded o
