2025:MHC:3010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.10.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.A.Nos.3002 & 3377 of 2024

W.A.No.3002 of 2024

D.Egambaram ...Appellant

Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Cuddalore.

2.The Management,

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Villupuram-605 602. ...Respondents

PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 31.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.1750 of 2013, and to direct the second respondent to pay the appellant’s back wages and all other attendant benefits and also to give him continuity of service for all purposes namely for annual increments, revision of pay, review, etc., in addition to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service for the

purpose of calculation of the gratuity at the time of retirement.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Ajay Khose For Respondents : R1 – Labour Court Mr.M.Aswin for R2 W.A.No.3377 of 2024 The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd., Villupuram-605 602. ...Appellant Vs.

1.D.Egambaram

2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. ...Respondents PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 31.10.2022 in W.P.No.23029 of 2012.

For Appellant : Mr.M.Aswin For Respondents : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose for R1 R2 – Labour Court

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)

The workman, who was a Conductor, was levelled with the charge that he had not issued tickets for 15 passengers and had 1.5 paisa of excess cash in his bag. The charge was held to be proved in the domestic inquiry and the Disciplinary Authority had dismissed him from service on 07.05.2001. When the workman challenged the order of punishment before the Labour Court, Cuddalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) in I.D.No.27 of 2002, the Labour Court rendered a preliminary Award, holding that the enquiry was not done in a fair and proper manner. Consequently, fresh evidences were let in and based on the evidences before it, the Labour Court recorded that none of the charges against the workman were proved. Thus, by an Award dated 07.12.2011, the Industrial Dispute was partly allowed and the workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, but the back wages and other attendant benefits were denied. Both the workman and the Management had challenged the Award before the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.1750 of 2013 and 23029 of 2012 respectively. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 31.10.2022, dismissed both the Writ Petitions. The workman, as well as the Management, have challenged the said common order in these two Writ Appeals.

2.By virtue of the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court would be well within its powers to let in fresh evidences, when a conclusion is arrived that the domestic inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. In the instant case also, the Labour Court, after finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper, had let in fresh evidence, wherein the Management had marked 12 documents, Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.12 and examined three witnesses, M.W.1 to M.W.3. On the side of the workman, four witnesses. including the workman, namely W.W.1 to W.W.4, were examined.

3.In the Award dated 07.12.2011, the Labour Court had analyzed the evidences before it and in particular, after analyzing the oral evidences of W.W.3 and W.W.4, had come to the conclusion that the charge that the workman did not issue tickets cannot be said to have been true. In this background, the Labour Court had set aside the dismissal order and ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service for the purpose of calculation of gratuity.

4.For denying the back wages and other attendant benefits, reliance was placed on the decisions in Kanhaiyalal Agarwal Vs. The Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., reported in 2001 LLR 1073 (SC); Trivandrum Co-ope