IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
V. Sundaram - Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Vellore & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 10959 of 2012
Decided On : 29-06-2022
Labour Court - Writ Petition - Model Standing Order Act, 1948 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was suspended and subsequently dismissed from service for allegedly manipulating Daily Milk Receipt Statements (DMR Statements) resulting in excess payments to milk producers' societies. The Labour Court confirmed the dismissal, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court's order was based on surmises and conjectures, and the reliance on statements from Secretaries of various Co-operative Societies without examination or cross-examination was not legal evidence. The Presenting Officer's statement was also not considered as evidence.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the dismissal based on the alleged manipulation of DMR Statements and the legal evidence considered by the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court's order was not based on legal evidence and violated procedural propriety. It emphasized the need for examination and cross-examination of witnesses and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Labour Court's order and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for a regular enquiry in compliance with principles of natural justice. The petitioner was to be reinstated immediately.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records from the 1st Respondent relating to impugned award dated 25.04.2011 in I.D. 182 /2009 and quash the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, award cost. )
1. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 25.04.2011, in ID.No.182 of 2009 and to quash the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent management to re-instate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits and to award cost.
2. At the outset, before proceeding to deal with the facts and the legal issues involved in the present writ petition, it may be relevant to take note of the fact that there were three bodies which worked closely with each other performing the following functions viz.,
a) The Milk Producers Co-operative Society supplies milk to the Chilling Centres.
b) The Chilling centres on receiving the milk from the Milk Producers Co-operative Society prepared a statement called Daily Milk Receipt Statements (hereinafter referred to as D.M.R Statements). The computer print of the D.M.R Statements are taken and signed by the officer in charge of the respective Chilling Centres and thereafter sent to the Apex Body at Vellore viz. (Vellore - Thiruvannamalai Milk Producers Co-operative Society).
c) On the basis of the said D.M.R. Statements, the milk bill payment statement is prepared and payments are made to the respective societies.
3. Background relating to the writ petition:
3.1. The petitioner had joined the Milk producers Co-operative Union as a daily wage skill worker in 1994 and was promoted as Senior Factory Assistant. Thereafter, the petitioner was working in the Computer Section. It is stated that a number of other employees were working along with the petitioner in the Computer Section which was headed by Selection Grade Executive Mr.Mohan.
3.2. While so, the petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 27.12.2006.
3.3. Subsequently, a Charge Memo dated 19.12.2007 was issued, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner had while preparing computer milk bill payment statements tampered with the said D.M.R Statements with a view to show a greater quantity of milk received from the Co-operative Societies than the quantities actually received. Resultantly, the 2nd Respondent which is the Apex Body viz., Vellore - Thiruvannamalai Milk Producers Co-operative Union paid more money to various Societies than what was legitimately due to them.
3.4. It was alleged that the data was tampered by the petitioner in connivance with the Secretaries of various Milk Producers Societies for the personal benefit of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was paid a portion of the excess amount that was illegally paid to the Society.
3.5. The Charge Memo also stated that, in view of the above illegal acts, the 2nd Respondent had paid excess amount to the tune of Rs.33,48,255/-. The said act constituted misconduct under Clause 16 (c) (d) and 17 of the Model Standing Order framed under the Model Standing Order Act, 1948.
4.1. The petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 24.12.2007, to the Charge Memo inter alia stating that, he did not prepare the D.M.R Statements but it was Mr.Mohan, the Selection Grade Executive in charge of Computer Section who prepared the Statements and the petitioner only carried out the instructions given by Mr.Mohan and refuted the allegation of manipulating the D.M.R Statements and prayed that the charges be dropped.
4.2. However, not satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered, wherein, reliance was sought to be placed inter alia on statements
The main legal point established is the requirement for disciplinary proceedings to be based on legal evidence and conducted in compliance with principles of natural justice, including the examinatio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be supported by valid evidence, and conclusions drawn must be sustainable based on the evidence presented.
No pay cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, since the petitioner did not attend to work on account of illegal order of suspension and dismissal from service, passed by the appellants h....
Termination without adequate evidence and disregard for fair procedures violates principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing all relevant documents to a charged employee to ensure a fair opportunity for defense in disciplinary proceedings.
A delinquent employee is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic enquiry, especially when the employer is represented by legally trained persons.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
The court confirmed the dismissal of the employee due to procedural flaws in the enquiry but found sufficient grounds that justified the dismissal based on substantive evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.