The burden of proof for misconduct lies with the employer, and failure to substantiate claims of loss of confidence invalidates the denial of reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

(A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.)

Heard.

2. Both writ petitions challenge the same award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 455 of 2017 dated 15.06.2020. By the said award, the Labour Court held that the petitioner worker in the first writ petition (W.P. No. 17438 of 2020) was not entitled to reinstatement but was instead awarded a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs in lieu of dismissal.

3. Aggrieved by the award, the workman filed the present writ petition as early as 05.11.2020, seeking to quash that portion of the award which granted him only compensation, and instead prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages, and other attendant benefits. When the writ petition was listed for admission on 10.12.2020, while ordering notice to the management, the learned Judge also directed service of papers on M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates, who had represented the management before the Labour Court. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 23.12.2020, the learned Judge passed the following order: —

“3.Considering both the submissions made by the learned counsel respectively appearing for both sides, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

(i) The respondent Management shall deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- [Rupees four lakhs only], as directed by the Labour Court through the impugned award, in the Labour Court account, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) Out of the said sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakh only] being 25%, by filing a formal petition before the Labour Court and the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in interest fetching Fixed Deposit until further orders.”

4. When the matter was taken up on 21.10.2021, the counsel for the management submitted that the amount had been deposited with the Labour Court as directed. It is also relevant to note that, Apart from the personal notice issued, the notice from this Court was served on both managements as early as 14.12.2020. If the management was aggrieved by the award, they ought to have challenged it either immediately upon receipt of the award from the Government or, at the very least, upon receiving notice from this Court.

5. On the other hand, the management was merely speculating over filing a cross writ petition. Ultimately, they filed W.P. No. 709 of 2023, challenging not only the final award dated 15.06.2020 but also the earlier preliminary award dated 13.02.2019. Thus, the management filed the writ petition nearly three years after the date of the award and even after having received notice in the earlier writ petition.

6. The reason for the considerable delay in filing the writ petition is sought to be explained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as follows: —

“The Labour Court though held the Petitioner substantiated the conduct of the Respondent and led to loss of confidence and granted the relief of compensation. In other words, having accepted the circumstances and probability, the relief granted by the Labour Court it totally unsustainable. After the award though the Petitioner was aggrieved over the relief granted by the Labour Court, in order to give a quietus to the issue, it sent a communication to the Respondent stating that in the event of Respondent receiving the amount ordered by the Labour Court, it could also accept the award and conclude the issue. However, the Respondent did not respond to the communication of the Petitioner whereas challenged the award before this Hon’ble Court by way of Writ Petition No.17438 of 2020. In the circumstances the Petition is also advised to challenge the award.”

7. Although the management claimed that a communication had been sent to the workman, neither a copy of the communication was enclosed in the typed set nor was the date of the communication mentioned in the affidavit referred to above. On th