Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The Management Coimbatore District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited Coimbatore – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Appellate Authority & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 14478 of 2010 & MP. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2010
Decided on : 27-03-2024
Certiorari - Employment Dispute - Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Section 41(2) - The court discussed the charges of misappropriation and deficit of stock against the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Section 41(2). The court referred to relevant case law to establish the principles of disciplinary authority's discretion in disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and the requirement to record reasons for such disagreement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order of dismissal against the second respondent for misappropriation of essential commodities meant for public distribution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges of misappropriation and deficit of stock were not proved during the domestic enquiry, and the first respondent's order setting aside the dismissal was justified based on substantial reasons in line with the report of the Enquiry Officer.
Issues: The issues revolved around the charges of misappropriation and deficit of stock, the validity of the domestic enquiry, and the first respondent's authority to set aside the dismissal order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority has the discretion to disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer and must record reasons for such disagreement. The court also emphasized the requirement for the management to prove the charges and the delinquent's admission of imputations.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the first respondent's order and the Enquiry Report.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to his order No. TNSE2/2009, dated 21.05.2010 and quash the same.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order No. TNSE-2/2009, dated 21.05.2010 passed by the first respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was working as Salesman for the period from April 2006 to July 2006 in Solaiyar Dam, Power House, and Manapalli Ration Shops under the Establishment of Coimbatore District Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, Coimbatore. While he was working, the 2nd respondent had siphoned off the essential commodities meant for public distribution to the tune of Rs.1,37,090.30. Pursuant to the same, charges were framed against him on 09.02.2006, domestic enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, the deficit stock was reported by way of Ex.M5. The Head of the Society had arrived at the amount and reported it for recovery. Based on the above charges, the second respondent-workman was suspended from service on 25.11.2006
3. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent admitted during the enquiry that he had remitted a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 10.05.2006; Rs.7,000/- on 12.05.2006, and Rs.10,148.75 on 01.08.2006 by way of valid receipts. The second respondent during the domestic enquiry, stated that, he will remit another sum of Rs.27,276.20, but, he did not produce any receipt or he did not pay the said amount Rs.27,276.20, as assured by him before the domestic enquiry. The total outstanding siphoned amount was Rs.1,37,090.30.
4. The 2nd respondent had participated in the domestic enquiry and he has not raised any dispute with regard to the employment of the Enquiry Officer or the procedures followed by the domestic enquiry. The second respondent had remitted a portion of money on different dates as stated supra and this fact is not in dispute by the petitioner/Management as well as the 2nd respondent herein.
5. According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer given a finding in favour of the second respondent by his report dated 18.07.2007 by not taking into consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner and the documents marked therein. The petitioner having not satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice to the 2nd respondent vide its Memo dated 30.04.2008 and the second respondent did not sent any reply to the show cause notice dated 30.04.2008.
6. The petitioner once again, issued another show cause notice dated 21.05.2008 and the petitioner received a reply dated 22.05.2008 from the second respondent stating that he did not receive the enquiry report. Since the second respondent has made a specific demand of requesting to furnish the enquiry report. The petitioner forwarded the enquiry report through its Memo dated 29.05.2008. The second respondent vide its letter dated 17.06.2008 demanded the Document No. ME-1, which was marked before the Enquiry Officer and the said document was furnished to the second respondent on 25.06.2008. The second respondent did not offer his explanation and thereafter, the petitioner through its Memo dated 07.07.2008 directed the second respondent to appear before the domestic enquiry for personal hearing on 21.07.2008.
7. The second respondent submitted his explanation dated 01.07.2008 which was received by the petitioner on 10.07.2008. The petitioner once again given an opportunity for personal hearing to the second respondent on 21.07.2008 through its Memo dated 14.07.2008. The second respondent submitted his explanation on 21.07.2008.
8. The petitioner after examining the explanation furnished by the second respondent and with all other connected documents, the Management of the Society passed the order of dismissal as again
The central legal point established in the judgment is the disciplinary authority's discretion to disagree with the inquiry officer's findings and the requirement to record reasons for such disagreem....
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
Termination without adequate evidence and disregard for fair procedures violates principles of natural justice.
Limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in labor disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in employment disputes and the need for evidence supporting findings in disciplinary proceedings.
The dismissal of the petitioner was set aside due to procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice, entitling him to retiral benefits.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
