IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
T. Thirulogam – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Labour Court, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 31109 of 2004
Decided On : 28-07-2023
Writ Petition - Labour Dispute - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to set aside the award of the Labour Court and reinstate the petitioner into service, based on the findings of biased domestic enquiry and previous misconduct of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dismissed employee, filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the award of the Labour Court and reinstate him into service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the petitioner was justified based on the findings of the biased domestic enquiry and the previous misconduct of the petitioner, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the non-employment of the petitioner was justified and what relief the petitioner was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the findings of the biased domestic enquiry and the previous misconduct of the petitioner to justify the dismissal.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the award of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, the first respondent herein passed in I.D.No.499 of 1997 dated 07.05.2004 and set aside the said award dated 07.05.2004.)
1. This writ petition has been filed praying to call for the records pertaining to the award of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, the first respondent herein passed in I.D.No.499 of 1997 dated 07.05.2004 and to set aside the said award dated 07.05.2004.
2. The Labour who was dismissed from service has raised an Industrial Dispute which ended unsuccessful and has filed the writ petition for re-instatement into service.
3. The service matrix of the petitioner is that:-
(i) The petitioner has joined the service of the respondent''s Company on 08.09.1971 and he was continuously worked for 25 years. On 28.10.1996, the respondent issued charge memo to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation.
(ii)The respondent ordered domestic enquiry and during the domestic enquiry, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W1 to W10. On the side of the Management, five witnesses were examined and Exs. M1 to M27 were marked. The enquiry officer presented his findings to the Management.
(iii) Second show cause notice dated 06.12.1996 was issued with the copy of the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioner submitted his explanation. The respondent-Management dismissed the petitioner by an order dated 14.12.1996. The respondent has not considered the past service of the petitioner. The petitioner raised I.D before the Labour Officer and the conciliation proceedings ended in failure hence he filed the I.D.
4. The point for consideration was taken as "Whether the non employment of the petitioner is justified; if not to what relief the petitioner is entitled or not?
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner joined in the service of the respondent on 08.09.1971 and his services were confirmed on 01.04.1977. Charge memo was issued on 28.10.96 and an enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was discharged from service.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and he has not committed any serious misconduct. The Management has relied upon Exs.M13 to M27 with regard to the conduct of the very same petitioner in causing the grievous injury in respect of co-employee.
8. During the cross-examination, the following facts were admitted by the petitioner. "On the basis of the charge sheet, the petitioner was removed from service after conducting the domestic enquiry. The petitioner was served charge memo before 20.10.96 and he has also submitted his explanations."
9. Admittedly, the I.D was filed in the year 1997. The counter has been filed as early as on 13.05.1998. The petitioner has chosen to file a reply statement on 27.06.1998 just before the trial and hence the averment made in the reply affidavit that allegation made against enquiry officer is only on fact, though it is come on evidence through Exs.M13 to M27 coupled with the admission now in the witness box.
10. As extracted supra, a similar kind of misconduct of causing grievance assaulted on the co-employee has been proved and hence this is a second time hence taking note of the previous conduct the respondent has dismissed the petitioner from service and the ID is also dismissed.
11. The learned counsel tried to impress upon me, the non employment of the petitioner is not justified and previous conduct should not be taken into account, I am unable to accept the said contention for more than one reason that the previous conduct was admitted by him during the cross examination of W.W.1. The proceedings of the
AI
The dismissal of an employee can be justified based on the findings of a biased domestic enquiry and the employee's previous misconduct.
The fairness of the domestic enquiry and the seriousness of the charges are crucial in justifying the punishment imposed by the employer.
The termination of probationary service can be justified if the employee fails to show improvement, and inordinate delay in raising an industrial dispute can affect the merits of the case.
The reliance on additional evidence and cross-examination to establish misconduct must be in accordance with legal propositions.
The court has the power to modify the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority when it is not justified, and the punishment should be proportionate to the charges against the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging wrongful termination, and in the absence of evidence supporting such claim, the court will no....
The High Court's role under Article 226 is not to re-evaluate evidence but to ensure that disciplinary proceedings comply with established legal standards and natural justice.
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.