IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:31.3.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No.8584 of 2008
.........
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Division-1)Ltd.(Ex.PTC),
12 Anna Salai,
Chennai.2. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
I Addl. Labour Court,
Chennai.
2. K.S.Dharmarajan ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to his award in I.D.No. 118 of 2000 dated 10.5.2006 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs. Rita Chandrasekaran
for
Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia
For Respondents : Mr. R. Lawrance - R2
-----
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to his award in I.D.No. 118 of 2000 dated 10.5.2006 and quash the same.
2. The transport Corporation has filed this writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court. The second respondent in this case is the employee under the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is the daily wage employee and was working as a driver and due to fatal accident caused in the course of his employment, without any proceedings, the second respondent was dismissed from service. Consequently, industrial dispute was raised in I.D.No. 118 of 2000 and after considering the claim of the second respondent and the reply affidavit of the petitioner/management, the labour Court came to the following conclusions.
” It is not in dispute that the petitioner entered as Driver on 26.3.97 and was carrying on his work till his termination on 8.10.98 under the respondent transport Corporation. The petitioner was terminated from service, as he had caused fatal accident on 7.10.98 and also considering the earlier major accident during his tenure as Driver. The petitioner contends that he was retrenched from service without any enquiry and without following the due process of law. The respondent per contra contends that the petitioner was appointed on casual basis and only on the basis of the investigation report from the accident branch and report of the accident review committee, his name was not considered to confirm for the driver post and stopped duty to the petitioner on 8.10.98. Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee under the respondent as defined under the I.D.Act. It is also admitted case of the respondent that no domestic enquiry was conducted with respect to the alleged misconduct i.e. regarding accident. The Law Officer of the respondent examined as M.W.2 says during cross examination that domestic enquiry could not be initiated, as the petitioner rushed to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and then to the Labour Court by raising industrial dispute. The accident occurred on 7.10.98. From the failure report of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, it is clear that the petitioner presented the petition before him only on 14.6.99. Therefore, the reason given by M.W.2 for non conducting domestic enquiry is not tenable. Even for a casual labour, the respondent is expected to follow the procedure laid down under the I.D.Act. To retrench an employee, the condition precedent to retrenchment as provided under section 25 of the I.D.Act has also not been followed in this case. Thus without conducting any enquiry regarding misconduct or following the procedure known to law, stopping the petitioner from work amounts to retrenchment and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.”
3. Considering the nature of the delinquency, the nature of service and the infraction of Law as noted above, the Labour Court awarded re-instatement with continuity of service together with 50% of backwages and all other attendant benefits. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The finding of the Labour Court is that the procedures prescribed under Law has not been followed and the order of dismissal has been passed arbitrarily, this Court is unable to find any good reason to fault the finding of the Labour Court. There is a clear breach of the provisions of law and petitioners are unable to counter the said finding on merits. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court and there is no plea of illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. Hence, the writ petition has to fail.
5. Pending writ petition, while granting interim stay, this Court has passed the following order:-
” Interim Stay on the following condition (i) The petitioner shall deposit 50% of the backwages as ordered by the Court below within eight weeks from today.
(ii) The petitioner shall comply with Section 17B of the ID Act and pay the arrears from the date of the award upto date within three weeks from today and continue to pay until further orders.
(iii) The Workman shall file an affidavit that he is not gainfully employed.”
The said order has been complied with by the petitioner. Further, as per the directions of Court dated 24.11.2008, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months from deposit made by the petitioner management.
6. Since the award of the Tribunal is confirmed, the petitioner is directed to re-employ the second respondent in the same capacity and pay appropriate wages as applicable. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six weeks time is granted to comply with the above directions.
7. In the result, finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
ra
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
I Addl. Labour Court,
Chennai