Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. MARIA CLETE
General Manager, CPF (India) Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
C.Kalaivasan, S/o. Padavettan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
Heard.
2. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the same Petitioner Management challenging two awards passed by the Principal Labour Court, Vellore, on 18.12.2019, in I.D.Nos. 3/2018 and 2/2018. By these awards, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal orders passed against the two respondent workmen and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service. In respect of I.D.No.3/2018 (C. Kalaivasan), reinstatement was ordered without back wages, while in I.D.No.2/2018 (C. Karunanithi), reinstatement was ordered with 50% of the back wages.
3. When both matters came up for admission, this Court, on 28.02.2020, ordered notice of motion. Subsequently, when the matters were listed again on the same date, this Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, granted a stay subject to the following condition:
“2. Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions submitted that the charges levelled against the Workmen are serious in nature viz., assault on and wrongfully restraining the other employees and when such charges were proved before the Labour Court by letting in evidence, the impugned awards were
The necessity of conducting a proper domestic inquiry before dismissal is emphasized, and reliance on inadmissible electronic evidence is criticized.
Dismissal without a proper inquiry is unjustifiable; individual misconduct must be proven for disciplinary action, affirming the right to strike as a legitimate demonstration.
The Labour Court must first determine the validity of domestic enquiry before evaluating evidence presented for dismissal in industrial disputes.
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages is the standard ruling, subject to specific considerations.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings r....
Point of Law : Satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or oth....
Stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer.
The absence of a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses renders a disciplinary enquiry invalid, and charges not substantiated by evidence cannot warrant dismissal.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is 'preponderance of probabilities', allowing for evidence that is logically probative, and excluding strict adherence to the Indian Evidence Act pro....
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
