IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 22.09.2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 24.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

W.P.No.11094 of 2017

B.Palaniswamy

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Presiding Officer,

I Additional Labour Court,

City Civil Court Campus,

High Court Buildings,

Chennai-600 104.

2. Tempel Precision Metal Product (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

No.7, Gudapakkam Village,

Puducharam Post,

Poonamallee Taluk,

Thiruvallur-600 124.

R2-cause title amended vide Court order dated

16.11.2018, made in WMP.34605/18 in

W.P.11094/17 by KRCBJ.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the award of the first respondent dated

04.07.2016 in I.D.No.189 of 2013 and to quash the same insofar

as it has not granted the normal relief of reinstatement with

back wages and continuity of service with other benefits and to

substitute the above relief in the award.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad

for M/s.Row & Reddy

For Respondent-2 : Mr.M.Vijayan

for M/s.King & Partridge

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner, who joined the second respondent Company as a

Driver, was promoted to the post of Supervisor on 25.11.2009.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It is the case of the Management that on 19.08.2010, some scrap

materials, along with garbages, were transported out of the

Company, for which the petitioner had received Rs.1500/- per

load towards removal of such scrap materials. Charges were

framed against the petitioner on 28.01.2011 for the delinquency

and by an order dated 12.02.2011, he was discharged from

services, on the ground that the Management had lost confidence

on him for his act of colluding in stealing the Company's

properties. In the dispute raised by the petitioner in

I.D.No.189 of 2013 before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai

under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

[hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”], the Labour Court had held

in its impugned award dated 04.07.2016, that the Management had

failed to prove the alleged misconduct of the petitioner.

However, since the petitioner also failed to establish

victimization for his union activities as alleged by him, a sum

of Rs.1 lakh was awarded as compensation in lieu of

reinstatement and other benefits. The workman has challenged

this award.

3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that when the Labour Court had held that the alleged misconduct

of the petitioner has not been proved, the Court ought to have

ordered for reinstatement with full back wages and other

benefits, the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent would submit that when the Management loses its

confidence and trust in the workman, the termination of the

petitioner is to be regarded as immune from challenge. In

support of their contentions, both the learned counsels relied

on certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which I shall

deal with later.

4. The Labour Court in its impugned award had held that, the

termination of the petitioner as a measure of punishment for the

alleged misconduct, without holding any enquiry or giving an

opportunity to him to defend himself, is per se invalid. This

apart, the Labour Court had taken into consideration the police

complaint given by the Management, which was later withdrawn and

held that merely because a complaint is given, it cannot be

concluded that the petitioner had permitted outsiders to remove

the scrap from the Company by receiving money, particularly,

when the Management had withdrawn the complaint. The oral

evidence let in by the Management M.W.1 and M.W.2 were held to

be ins