IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.2303 OF 2010 P.A.Shanmugam .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. 2.The Management of Sankarapuram Co-op. Land Development Bank Ltd., Sankarapuram, Villupuram District. .. Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.94/1997 dated 14.08.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam O R D E R
Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.The petitioner has come forward to challenge the award passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.94/1997 dated 14.08.2003.
3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner was employed by the second respondent Co-operative Bank. He was originally appointed on compassionate ground on 25.08.1990 and was made permanent on 09.08.1991. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 31.08.1996. The dismissal was on the ground that the petitioner had produced bogus educational certificate. When the educational certificate produced by the petitioner was verified by the authorities of the School Department, it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner belongs to some other person, whose parents name were also different. In the name of the petitioner, there was no such student studied in the said school.
4.After dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said dispute was taken on file by the first respondent as I.D.No.94/1997 and notice was ordered to the second respondent. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the petitioner three documents were marked as exhibits W1 to W3 and on the side of the second respondent, 10 documents were marked as exhibits M1 to M10. Through the Court process, two documents were summoned from the school from which the petitioner allegedly produced a certificate. They were marked as Court exhibits 1 & 2. During the pendency of the dispute, an exparte award was passed in favour of the petitioner.
5.Therefore, the second respondent filed an application to set aside the exparte award and the same was rejected by the Labour Court on 31.07.1998. Thereafter, the second respondent approached this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11262 to 11264 of 2000. This Court, on 31.12.2002 allowed the writ petitions, subject to the second respondent paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, to set aside the exparte award and restored the Industrial Dispute for disposal in accordance with law.
6.Thereafter, the elaborate procedure took place before the Labour Court and the petitioner’s industrial dispute was dismissed as early as on 14.08.2003. The petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the award either immediately or within the reasonable time. Even in the affidavit, in para 5, he merely stated that he could not approach this Court as he was out of employment and he could not mobilize funds. But however, what transpires is that there was criminal case pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.29/2002. In that criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted on a charge of Section 468 IPC by a judgment dated 30.06.2005.
7.The petitioner, even after the acquittal, did not move this Court. The reasons given by the petitioner for coming to this Court long after seven years of the award or five years of the acquittal of the Criminal Court, cannot be countenanced by this Court and the writ petition is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
TK
To
The Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District