IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 10-07-2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A.No.2789 of 2022 The Management, Iyyappa Enterprises ... Appellant -vs-

1.D.Rajendran

2.The Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 11.10.2022, passed in W.P.No.15527 of 2014 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Ms.S.Pavithrashini For Respondent 1 : Mr.D.Bharathy

JUDGMENT

(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Management, challenging the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.10.2022, passed in W.P.No.15527 of 2014, in granting back-wages at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month from 07.04.2003 till 08.11.2012, which should be extended within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

2. First respondent-employee, who joined the services of the Management, caused an incident of assault on a co-worker, namely, Moorthy, and, thereafter, abandoned the services. As the appellant-employer could not trace the address of the employee, even though a criminal complaint was filed, they did not proceed further. The employee raised an industrial dispute, stating that he had been retrenched from service and that the action of the employer was bad.

3. Before the Labour Court, the Management filed a counter, stating that the employee, after causing an assault on a co-worker, abandoned the services and that they are inclined to establish the charges, by letting in evidence, as could be seen from Paragraph 8 of the Counter Statement, which is extracted below :

''8. With regard to the contentions of the Petitioner in Para 6, the Respondent management expressly reserves the right to lead evidence inter alia on the happenings on 4/4/2003 at the appropriate stage of trial before this Hon'ble Court for a) violent behaviour in the work spot and b)

absconding from service.''

4. On behalf of Management, two witnesses have been examined and employee also let in evidence and examined two workers. The Labour Court came to the conclusion, that, through Exs.R-3 and R-4, charges had been proved and that there was an assault on the co-employee. However, the Labour Court held that the employee would not be entitled to any relief of back-wages. The Labour Court also held that the employer had not produced any documents to show that the Communication, dated 07.04.2023, dismissing the employee, was sent to the employee. In fact, in the exhibits produced before the Labour Court, the said document was also not filed. During the inquiry, the employer stated that they were willing to provide employment to the employee based on the conclusion of the Labour Court that the employee would be entitled to be reinstated without back-wages, but without continuity of service. That is, for the first time, the Labour Court imposed the punishment of denial of back-wages, as no inquiry was conducted against the employee for misconduct, more so after having found that the charges had been proved.

5. Aggrieved over the award of the Labour Court, Writ Petition was filed by the employee, contending that he was entitled to back-wages. The learned single Judge, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Sarwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others, 2013 (10) SCC 324, held that the Labour Court, when intended to withhold back-wages, must have rendered a specific finding for such denial. It was also held by the learned single Judge that there was no such statement recorded by the Labour Court and, instead, it recorded the statement made by M.W.1, who expressed his willingness to offer employment to the employee, and thereby awarded reinstatement with continuity of service. The learned single Judge further held, that, for denial of back-wages, there was absolutely no finding recorded by the Labour Court.

6. In the