Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
The Management, Anthiyur Consumer Co-operative Store Limited – Petitioner
Versus
R.Parthiban and ors. – Respondents
W.A.No.1402 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.10142 of 2024
Decided On : 17-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.R. Balaramesh
Judicial review under Article 226 ensures fair treatment, not an appeal to substitute findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review - The appeal challenges the dismissal of a workman for alleged misconduct including theft and fabrication of accounts - The Labour Court found the charges unproven, emphasizing the need for evidence in disciplinary proceedings - The High Court affirmed the Labour Court's findings, noting that judicial review does not extend to re-evaluating factual findings unless they are perverse. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Standard of proof - The court reiterated that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings differs from that in criminal cases, and the authority must base findings on evidence. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the termination of a workman based on charges of theft and fabrication of accounts, which were contested in an industrial dispute. The Labour Court found insufficient evidence to support the charges.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court's findings were upheld, confirming that the charges were not substantiated by evidence.
Issues: The main issues included whether the charges against the workman were proven and the appropriateness of the disciplinary action taken.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court's findings were reasonable and based on the evidence presented, affirming that judicial review does not allow for re-assessment of factual determinations unless they are clearly erroneous.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C.Kumarappan, J.
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, praying to set aside the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14519 of 2017.
The instant appeal has been filed by the Management assailing the order of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14519 of 2017.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant / Management would contend that a charge memorandum dated 29.04.2006 was issued for serious misconduct of theft of food grains and sugar, and for fabricating false accounts and for generating bogus bills. The learned counsel would also contend that, they also registered an F.I.R in Crime No.15 of 2006, under Section 457 and 380 IPC. Therefore, contended that the order of dismissal is well-merited and liable to be confirmed. It was further contended that the subsequent acquittal of the criminal case in C.C.No.104 of 2006, and it's confirmation by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2010, will in no way affect the disciplinary proceedings, as the standard of proof before the Criminal Court, and domestic enquiry would vary. The learned counsel for the appellant / Management would further submit that the Labour Court, as well as the learned Single Judge has not gone into the material particulars and therefore, prayed to set aside the same.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that, the first respondent / workman raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.126 of 2008 before the Labour Court, Salem, challenging his order of termination dated 23.02.2008. It is his case that the appellant / Management issued a frivolous charge memorandum and that, in spite his valid explanation, Management proceeded with an enquiry, and that after enquiry, he was illegally terminated from service, with effect from 23.02.2008, which was subsequently set aside by the Labour Court. Thus, it is the submission of the first respondent / workman that the order of termination is illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside.
4. We have given our anxious consideration on the submissions made on either side.
5. According to the Management, the charge memorandum dated 29.04.2006, contains the following three charges. (1) Theft of a huge quantity of essential commodities such as sugar and rice from the appellant's society, (2) There was a deficit of stocks. (3) Preparation of a bogus bill. In the domestic enquiry vide report dated 09.06.2007, all the three charges were held as proved. However, when the first respondent / workman raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.126 of 2008, the Labour Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidences, and on the basis of the available documents, arrived at the conclusion that the charge of theft could not be proved merely on the basis of the letter of the Inspector of Police.
6. It is the further finding of the Labour Court that, in respect of the charge of theft, there are no materials before the Court to support such a charge. Furthermore, it was held that unless the deficit of actual stock on the crucial date is proved, the question of theft cannot be justified. Apart from that, the learned Labour Judge has also relied upon the subsequent acquittal order against the first respondent / workman in C.C.No.104 of 2006, which was latter confirmed in Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2010 by this Court. Therefore, after analysing all these factors and after an elaborate discussion, the Labour Court found that the first charge of theft has not been proved.
7. Similarly, in respect of the second charge of deficit of stock, it is the specific finding of the Labour Court that no stock records have been submitted before the Court, besides, it was admitted by the Management witness that, unless the stock registers are produced, the charge of deficit of stock cannot be proved. Therefore, based on the above admission of the Management witnesses, and on account of the absence of proof regarding the deficit of stock, the Labour Court foun
