IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.17416 of 2000 The Management of Ellavadi Primary Agricultural Co-op.,Bank, Rep. By its President, Moongilpadi Post, Chinna Salem Viz, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. 2.S.Arunachalam 3.C.Raghavan ...Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.105/93 dated 10.03.2000 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Thiagarajan For Respondents : Mr.V.Kalyanaraman for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia for R2 No appearance - R3 O R D E R
The petitioner is the Management of Ellavadi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. They have come forward with this writ petition challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.105 of 1993 dated 10.03.2000.
2. By the impugned Award, the first respondent Labour Court, Cuddalore directed the second respondent to be reinstated in service with full backwages, service continuity and other attendant benefits together with cost of Rs.300/-.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 13.10.2000. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted interim stay on condition that 50% of the amount of backwages should be deposited with the Labour Court. Subsequently on 02.11.2001, time was extended till 14.12.2001 to deposit the amount, as sought for by the Management. However, it is now informed that the amount has not been deposited at all. Therefore, when the matter came up on 19.02.2002, this Court held that if the amount was not deposited, the interim stay will be vacated. If the amount had already been deposited, that will be invested in Punjab National Bank, Cuddalore.
4. Subsequently, the workman filed an application for payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in W.P.M.P.NO.41103 of 2004. This Court by an order dated 21.02.2005 directed payment of Rs.2,571/-per month from 10.03.2000 till the disposal of the writ petition. Even that order bas been disobeyed by the Petitioner Management. The earlier petition filed by the workman in W.P.M.P.No.1951 of 2004 was rejected on the ground of the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.41103 of 2004.
5. Since at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner did not file all the documents, this Court directed the Registry to get the original records and circulate the same for perusal. Accordingly, original records had been circulated and perused by this Court.
6. Before the Labour Court, the workman had filed claim statement on 28.04.1991 claiming the relief of reinstatement with backwages. In his claim statement, the workman stated that he was dismissed from service without proper enquiry and that the enquiry should be held to be invalid.
7. Though the Management contested the said issue, in their counter statement dated Nil, they also sought for permission to lead fresh evidence before the Labour Court.
8. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the workman was invalid as it was opposed to the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with the by-laws of the Society. The said preliminary order was not under challenge. Subsequent to the passing of the preliminary order, the Management had examined one R.Subramanian. Though certain documents were filed for the purpose of preliminary enquiry, after the enquiry was set aside, the Management witness M.W.2 marked Exs.M12 to M37. During the cross-examination, the Management witness did not say that the second respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since he was a Secretary and discharging supervisory function drawing more than Rs.1,600/-, the Labour Court refused to believe that the workman was not covered by the provisions of the I.D.Act. After the evidence of the Management was over, the workman was examined. After his cross-examination, he was recalled and Exs.W47 to W58 were filed. The Special officer, who was examined as M.W.1 stated that he was Special Officer from 27.09.1992 and he did not know anything about the misconduct or the nature of allegations made against the Workman. Therefore, the Labour court held that notwithstanding the opportunity that was granted, the Management failed to examine proper witnesses to prove the charges against the workman. It had also found that there was no proof that the Workman had committed beach of trust in the matter of sale of fair price items and the Management also did not file the Special By-laws showing the nature of duties attributable to the second respondent. The Labour Court held that none of the charges levelled against the workman were proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Though during the domestic enquiry, it was stated that 13 out of 16 charges were proved, but those charges were made without any legal evidence. Having found that none of the charges have been proved, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Workman was eligible for reinstatement with backwages.
9. The only question that has to be decided in this writ petition is whether the Management had substantiated the charge against the second respondent Workman and whether the impugned Award is liable to be interfered with.
10. As noted already, the Management did not question the preliminary order setting aside the enquiry. When once the domestic enquiry was set aside and fresh evidence was allowed to be let in before the Labour Cuort, then no part of the evidence recorded during the domestic enquiry can be relied upon by the Labour Court as held by the Supreme Court in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another reported in 1991 (1) C.L.R.219. Therefore, both sides could not rely upon any of the evidence that was recorded during the domestic enquiry when fresh evidence was let in. The subsequent Special Officer informed the Court that he was not aware of the charges as he was not a direct witness to the misconduct allegedly committed by the Workman. Having got an opportunity, it was the Management who failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Labour Court that the charges have been proved.
11. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
08.03.2010
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
svki
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Cuddalore.
K.CHANDRU,J.
Svki
W.P.No.17416 of 2000
08.03.2010