Back
C. V. KARTHIKEYAN, R. POORNIMA
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited – Appellant
Versus
S. M. Rajendran – Respondent
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
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 appel....
The court established that procedural fairness is essential in disciplinary inquiries, and failure to adhere to this can render dismissals invalid.
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 employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The court emphasized that a delay in seeking relief under Article 226 without sufficient explanation is a ground for dismissal, limiting the High Court's re-evaluative powers in disciplinary matters.
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
