IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.03.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

W.P.NO.18716 OF 2011

&

M.P.NO.1 OF 2011

The Managing Director,

M/s.P.ORR & Sons Pvt.Ltd.,

No.855, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer,

The Principal Labour Court,

Chennai.

2.S.Latha

... Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for

the records of the award passed by the first respondent herein

made in I.D.No.245 of 2004 dated 10.05.2011 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban

For Respondents

: Mr.R.Subramanian [for R2]

*****

O R D E R

The present writ petition has been preferred against

the award of Labour Court directing reinstatement of the 2^nd

respondent without back wages and other attendant benefits and

imposed punishment of withholding the increment for a period of

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

three years with cumulative effect.

2. According to the management, the Labour Court has

given a categorical finding by its order dated 14.09.2010 that

the Domestic Enquiry was conducted in a very fair and proper

manner. Later, while discussing the charges as well as the

punishment, it was held that the charge with regard to

negligence as well as production of false certificate has been

proved. However, it was held that dishonesty has not been proved

and it cannot be held the employee has stolen the watch from the

management. On the above finding, the Labour Court has

considered the proportionality of the punishment. The Labour

Court has considered the age, length of service and the family

circumstances of the 2^nd respondent imposed the above said

punishment of reinstatment of

continuity of service, but

without back wages and other attendant benefits and also imposed

punishment of withholding of increment without cumulative

effect.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the Labour Court has failed to discuss the judgments

placed before it on the issue of proportionality of the

punishment as well as the loss of confidence by the management

for the purpose of deciding reinstatement. According to him, as

per the judgment reported in 1980 (1) MLJ 425 [Gordon Woodroffe

Employees Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], it was categorically

held that length of service is not a license to commit

misconduct. Insofar as the negligence is concerned, it is proved

beyond doubt and for the proved misconduct, imposing major

punishment is not disproportionate. At any cost, the

reinstatement cannot be ordered.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent, the action of the 2nd respondent cannot be

considered as misconduct since there is substantial evidence to

show that the loss of watch cannot be directly attributed to the

worker. The drawer from where the watch was found missing has 2

keys and one of the key was held by the management. When there

are two views possible, the misconduct cannot be attributed to

the 2^nd respondent and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly

held that she has not stolen the watch. In respect of the second

charge, the categorical finding is that the management has

failed to prove that the post which was held by the 2^nd

respondent requires degree qualification. Since she has

completed 15 years of service in the course, it cannot be

construed that she has given false information for the purpose

of joining the service. Therefore, the finding that the

punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the conscience is

not without reason, but it is based on acceptable and valid

reasons.

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

5. Heard the submissions and perused the materials.

6. At the outset, as admitted by the parties, the fin