SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 704

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
S.P. Ammasi (Deceased) & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Coimbatore & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 18628 of 2004
Decided on : 14-07-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sathish Kumar for M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Parthiban, Advocate.

Limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in labor disputes.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Labour Dispute - Circular/Agreement dated 21.12.1996, Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules - The court discussed the circular/agreement dated 21.12.1996 and the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules in relation to the theft of tea leaves by the petitioner. The court also referred to various judgments to establish the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in labor disputes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Leaf Supervisor, was dismissed from service for the alleged theft of tea leaves. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed that another individual was responsible for the theft. The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim, leading to the present writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was responsible for the theft of tea leaves based on the evidence and documents presented. The court also confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court, dismissing the writ petition.

Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged theft of tea leaves by the petitioner, the fairness of the domestic enquiry, and the applicability of the circular/agreement dated 21.12.1996 and the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence and documents presented, as well as the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in labor disputes.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the award passed by the Labour Court was confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Award dated 13.11.2003 passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.269 of 1998 and quash the same as being illegal and unjust and direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.)

The relief sought in this writ petition is call for the records relating to the Award dated 13.11.2003 passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.269 of 1998 and quash the same as being illegal and unjust and direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined as Assistant Leaf Supervisor in the second respondent company on 1974, which processes the tea and sell the same. The duty of the petitioner is to weigh the tea leaves in the procurement centers and transport them by tractors to the factory. Subsequently, a letter dated 23.09.1997 was sent by one Kadiresan (Contractor) and Kanagarathinam (Helper) to the second respondent company stating that there was a deficit of one bag (40 kgs) out of 56 bags weighing 2109 kgs. Thereby, a show cause notice dated 24.09.1997 was issued to the petitioner, holding him responsible for the loss of one bag weighing 40 kgs, which was denied by the petitioner.

3. Further, the second responded company and the enquiry officer proceeded the enquiry and found that the petitioner has committed gross negligence regarding loss of one bag containing 40 Kgs. Whileso, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 11.02.1998. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner filed a petition in I.D.No.269 of 1998 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. Further, the first respondent / Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2003. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that earlier a Circular / Agreement dated 21.12.1996 was entered between the second respondent company and the contractor (transport) regarding the procurement of tea leaves. The relevant condition of the said contract is extracted as follows:

    Condition No.4:

* If there is shortage/deficit of bags in transit, the transport contractor is responsible and he is liable to pay the twice the price as fixed by the 2nd respondent.

Condition No.5:

* The transport contractor is responsible for any loss during transportation.

5. He further contended that after the issuance of first show cause notice dated 24.09.1997, the second respondent company proceeded the enquiry and one viz., Pandian who is working as a Loadman in the second respondent company has confessed that he had committed theft of one bag weighing (40Kgs) out of 2109 kgs. Inspite of the confessional statement given by the said Pandian, the second respondent company and the enquiry officer further proceeded with the enquiry and found that the petitioner has committed the theft, which is not sustainable one. Accordingly, he prays this Court to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner was passed away and the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner are brought on record.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner was an Assistant Leaf Supervisor who was expected to be honest in discharging his duties. He has to go to the leaf centres, procure the tea leaves from the members and fetch them to the Factory by lorry/tractor and hand over the exact quantum of Tea procured. While weighing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top