IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.12.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA W.P.No.6462 of 2019 A. Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

The Management of Lotus Foot Wear Enterprises Limited, 3 B, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Mangal Village - Mathur Post Cheyyar Taluk. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in connection with I.D. No.58 of 2015, passed by the Principal Labour Court, Vellore, on 18.03.2016 and quash the same and further direct the respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.V. Prakash Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.K.Sudalai Kannu For Respondent : Mr.Manohar Gupta for Mr. M. Kandasamy ORDER The Petitioner Dhanalakshmi has challenged the order dated

18.03.2016 in I.D. No.58 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

2. The petitioner Dhanalakshmi joined the respondent Company M/s. Lotus Foot Wear Enterprises Limited which is into manufacture of footwear with its factory in Mangal Village, Mathur Post, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, in 2008. After probation, she was confirmed in service on 19.05.2010 and appointed as Assistant. She joined the United Workers Union in 2014. On 28.11.2014, she was not allowed to report for duty and was informed by the HR Department of the Company that she was placed under suspension. It was because of an alleged incident on 27.11.2014 in which the petitioner reportedly abused her superiors and other employees in filthy language and did not obey the lawful orders of her superiors. When she was issued two warning letters she refused to receive them.

2.1. On 10.12.2014 she received a charge memo dated 06.12.2014.

The charge memo was based on a complaint dated 27.11.2014 from some of the co-employees and contained certain incidents of misconduct which involved use of abusive language, insubordination and non-adherence of work hours. She had replied to the charge memo. However, the petitioner Management went ahead with the domestic enquiry which commenced on 27.12.2014 and went on till 19.01.2015. On 19.01.2015 the Enquiry Officer decided to pass an ex parte order citing the rude and arrogant behaviour of the employee (petitioner) who tore the proceedings copy into pieces and threw on the face of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner alleged that the Enquiry Officer and another Officer present in the enquiry had misbehaved with her and lodged a complaint with the All Women Police Station, Cheyyar. The complaint was reportedly closed as 'mistake of fact'. The aggrieved petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C in the Judicial Magistrate Court of Cheyyar.

2.2. After the enquiry concluded ex parte, a second show cause notice dated 23.01.2015 was issued to the petitioner. She was terminated from service on 03.02.2015 which led to the petitioner approaching the Labour Officer for conciliation. The conciliation failed and resulted in the petitioner filing I.D.No.58 of 2015 in the Principal Labour Court Vellore. The Principal Labour Court, Vellore, vide its order 18.03.2016, dismissed the petition in ID No.58 of 2015 by observing thus:

"I could not find out any error, irregularity, illegality, perversity, non-observance of natural justice in the enquiry report. I also did not find any fault of dis proportionality in so far as terminating the petitioner after due enquiry upon the enquiry report".

3. This order is challenged in this petition.

4. Mr.V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.K.Sudalai Kannu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the Labour Court failed in its adjudication by not deciding whether the domestic enquiry in the first place was fair and whether adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. According to him, without going into this aspect, as a pre