IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA W.P.No.2816 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 and 2 of 2015 The Managing Director, Norton Granites and Spinners Pvt Ltd, Pappanchatram, Chennai – 602 107. ... Petitioner -vs-

1.The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 104.

2.Aranganathan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in I.A.No.66 of 2013 in I.D.No.584 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, quash the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in I.A.No.66 of 2013 in I.D.No.584 of 2005.

For petitioner : Mr.R.Gowtaman R1 : Labour Court For R2 : No appearance *****

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent viz., I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in and by which, the Presiding Officer had dismissed I.A.No.66 of 2013 in I.D.No.584 of 2005 which was filed to set aside the ex parte award dated 04.01.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded are set out hereinbelow.

2.1. The second respondent workman was employed under the petitioner herein from 14.04.1994 and he had been diligently working in the said concern. After 10 years of service, all of a sudden, the second respondent was denied employment without any reasonable cause on 13.03.2004. A day prior to that, he had been asked to encash a cheque at a local bank where there was a theft of the said cheque amount after encashment. The second respondent had immediately lodged a complaint with the local police and also filed an FIR. However, the petitioner demanded the second respondent to pay the said money and refused to give him work. 2.2. The second respondent had sent a letter to provide him a job which was refused by the petitioner. Considering the non-employment, the second respondent raised a case under Industrial Disputes Act challenging the denial of employment by the management. The second respondent had also filed a claim petition before the first respondent challenging his termination and seeking reinstatement with all backwages and other attendant benefits. The last drawn salary of the second respondent was Rs.1,840/- per month.

2.3. A counter was filed by the petitioner herein denying the averments and allegations contained in that case. The petitioner subsequently denied the fact that the management had refused to offer employment to the second respondent. It was the contention of the petitioner that it was the second respondent who had absconded out of guilty conscience due to misappropriation of Rs.10,000/-. It was only after the insistence of the petitioner, the second respondent had lodged a complaint. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that the second respondent was not entitled to any relief.

2.4. Except for filing a counter, the petitioner had not let in either oral or documentary evidence. On the other hand, the second respondent had got into the box and marked exhibits viz.,Exs.W1 to W4 which included the FIR that had been filed by him about the theft of money.

3. The first respondent had taken into account the fact that the petitioner had not taken any steps to hold a domestic enquiry against the second respondent for the alleged theft of cash and the only defence that has been taken by the petitioner was that due to his guilty conscience of having misappropriated the money, the second respondent had himself stopped attending work. Therefore, the first respondent viz., I Additional Labour Court had held that the petitioner has not terminated the service of the second respondent by following the procedure laid down under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Ultimately, by an award dated 04.01.2013, the first respondent had proceeded to direct the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent into service with 50% of backwages, continuity of service and all other benefits.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner had come