The High Court cannot interfere in disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 when an alternate remedy exists under the Industrial Disputes Act, and it must not reappraise evidence or act as an appellate authority.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 10584 of 2010, dated 22.01.2019.

1. The respondents in W.P. (MD) No. 10584 of 2010 aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2019 of the learned Single Judge, by which order, the learned Single Judge had granted reinstatement of the writ petitioner back to the service of the appellants herein, in effect, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd., Kagithapuram, Karur District, however, without backwages, have filed the present Writ Appeal.

2. The writ petitioner had filed the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10584 of 2010 in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with an impugned order, dated 01.09.2007 passed by the second respondent in the Writ Petition, 2nd appellant herein/ Chief Manager, (Human Relations), Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Kagithapuram, Karur District, in HR/06/1995 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the appellants herein to reinstate the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

3. Even before proceeding further, it has to be mentioned that the second respondent in the Writ Petition who had passed the impugned order has been impleaded also as a respondent in the Writ Petition, in his name, K. Thangaraju.

4. The writ petitioner has no cause for grievance as against the said individual in person but had filed the Writ Petition questioning the order passed by the second respondent in the Writ Petition. This is an observation made by us.

5. In order to facilitate better and conducive narration of the facts, we shall refer to the parties as they were referred to in the Writ Petition. This would indicate that the appellants in the Writ Appeal would be termed as respondents and the first respondent herein termed as writ petitioner.

6. The writ petitioner was employed in Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. (in short TNPL), Karur as a Semi Skilled Workman. This very statement made by the writ petitioner in his affidavit has invited an argument to be advanced on behalf of the respondents in the Writ Petition/appellants herein that once the writ petitioner categorises himself as a Workman, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would automatically come into effect and any dispute arising owing to the employment or out of the employment, will have to be adjudicated and brought only before the Tribunal constituted for that particular purpose, namely, the Labour Court and specifically under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. If a grievance is raised, then a dispute will have to be raised under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The issue will have to be referred to conciliation and if the Conciliation Officer were to file a report that conciliation was not possible, then the aggrieved workman can always approach the Labour Court by filing what is commonly called an Industrial Dispute Petition. In effect, he has to raise a dispute against the management. In the instant case, however, having categorised himself as a semi skilled workman, questioning an order of termination from service passed by the respondents in the Writ Petition, a Writ Petition has been filed.

7. To proceed further with the narration of the facts, the writ petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 22.02.2007 which could be termed as the first show cause notice. He had been put on notice by the said show cause notice, that he had been continuously absent from 16.02.2007 till the date of issuing the show cause notice, namely, 22.02.2007 without any prior permission or intimation. He had also been put on notice that such absence was unauthorised and affected the work in his section, wherein, he had to perform his duties. He was therefore, directed to report immediately to work within 48 hours, failing which, he had been put on notice that disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him. He was given an opportunity to give an expl