Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice P. Dhanabal, J
Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation TN Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K.B. Ramalingam [deceased] – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized absence and disciplinary action (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents' defense of proper procedure (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's review of proceedings (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's ruling on merits (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner Corporation and he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 01.11.1986 and he was a habitual absentee and his attendance was not satisfied. While so, in the year 1993, the 1st respondent attended duty only for 21 days. He was unauthorizedly absent to the duty for one month from 01.06.1995 to 30.06.1995. Dut to his unauthorised absence, the Writ Petitioner Corportion had issued a charge memo and thereafter, the 1st respondent had given an explanation and had met the General Manager of the Writ petitioner Corporation. Thereafter, on humanitarian ground, in order to give an opportunity, he was permitted to work without prejudice to the domestic enquiry. Again, the 1st respondent was absented for 3 months continuously without any leave letter/medical certificate. In the meantime, the previous domestic enquiry was completed and after rec
The court upheld the Labour Court's exparte award due to the petitioner's failure to comply with orders and present evidence, dismissing the Writ petition for lack of merit.
The court ruled that a nine-year delay in raising an industrial dispute does not automatically render the claim stale, but the punishment for absenteeism must be proportionate to the misconduct.
Dismissal for unauthorized absenteeism upheld as justified despite claims of procedural unfairness due to failure of the petitioner to engage with the enquiry process.
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 court established that procedural fairness is essential in disciplinary inquiries, and failure to adhere to this can render dismissals invalid.
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....
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
