Madras High Court
The Co-Operative Sub-Registrar / vs A.Balaraman … on 27 November, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON :28.08.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.26040 of 2024
and WMP(MD).No.22083 of 2024
The Co-operative Sub-Registrar /
Special Officer
(Now administrator)
T.T.218 Palani Agricultural Producers
Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.,
67, Dindigul Road, Palani-1 ....Petitioner
Vs
A.Balaraman ….Respondent
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction
against the preliminary award of the Labour Court, Trichy (Dindigul Camp
Court) in I.D.No.5/2009 dated 14.07.2022 as well as the final award passed
in I.D.No.5/2009 dated 18.08.2023 in the nature of writ calling for the
records on the file of the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
For Respondent : Mr.T.Leninkumar
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm )
W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by the management of Palani Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited challenging the preliminary award dated 14.07.2022 and the final award dated 18.08.2023 passed in I.D.No.5/2009.
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.The respondent herein was employed as a driver in the petitioner Co-operative Society. He was placed under suspension on 23.02.2007 for the alleged misconduct of taking lorry to other district without permission of the Special Officer for certain illegal purposes. A charge memo was issued to him on 17.10.2007 for which he submitted his reply on 27.10.2007. Not being satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered. After several hearings, the workman was said exparte. The enquiry officer submitted his findings on 27.02.2008 wherein the workman was found guilty of the charges framed against him.
3.A second show cause notice was issued by the management on 08.03.2008 proposing to dismiss the employee. The workman has submitted his explanation on 14.03.2008. After considering explanation, an order of dismissal came to be passed on 21.04.2008. Challenging the order of dismissal, the workman had preferred I.D.No.5 of 2009. The Labour Court 2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 had passed a preliminary award to the effect that the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent management is not fair and proper. The said order has been issued on the following grounds:
a).No enquiry notice was sent to the workman intimating that the proceedings would be conducted on 18.01.2008 and 29.01.2008.
However, it has been recorded that the workman was absent.
b).Even for the hearing date 11.02.2008, no notice has been issued.
c).The workman had requested for appointment of an observer for the domestic enquiry proceedings. However, without considering the said request, the enquiry officer has dismissed the said application without proper reason. It has caused prejudice to the workman.
d).Under Ex.M16, the enquiry officer had denied the documents relating to Section 81 enquiry for the period of 1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007.
e).Based upon the statement made by the management with respect to the document in custody of the management, the enquiry officer has proceeded to pass an order denying furnishing of those documents. The enquiry officer has not sent any reply to the workman over the requisition of documents.
3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024
f).Without considering the medical report of the workman, the enquiry officer has set exparte with an adverse remark that the criminal case is pending as against the workman. Therefore, he wantonly prolonging the enquiry proceedings.
g).No subsistence allowance was given to the workman since December 2007, January 2008 till March 2008 and therefore, the non payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the domestic enquiry shows that the workman was denied with the opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice.
h).Overall analysis of the enquiry proceedings show that the enquiry has been proceeded in a slip-shod manner and as a mere formality. Therefore, the workman was not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard properly and to cross examine the concerned witnesses.
4.In view of the above said findings, the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry proceedings are vitiated and they have not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. The Labour Court had directed the management to let in evidence and posted the case to 05.08.2022.
5.While passing the final award on 18.08.2023, the Labour Court was pleased to set aside the punishment of dismissal and ordered reinstatement 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 with continuity of service with attendant benefits. However, backwages were denied. The following reasons were assigned by the Labour Court for passing the final award in favour of the workman.
i)Exs.M3 to M11, M16 and M17 were marked during the preliminary award proceedings and they indicated that those documents are against the principles of natural justice and perverse. Therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration either fresh evidence or materials on record within the meaning of Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court proceeded to direct the respondent management to prove by adducing evidence that the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by them was proper.
(ii).The onus of proof lies on the respondent and accordingly, opportunity was given to the respondent management for proving the charges as against the workman.
(iii).Though alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 23.02.2007, a charge memo has been issued after a period of 7 months on 17.10.2007. In the charge memo, 8 charges have been laid as against the workman.
(iv).The workman had sought adjournment due to ill-health and for production of certain documents. He had also 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 sought a permission to have an assistant on his side during enquiry proceedings. However, neither permission was granted to have an assistant nor documents sought for was applied. Therefore, the non- providing required document without any reasonable reply and not allowing the petitioner to participate with an assistant makes it evident that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. The workman had sent several letters seeking adjournments including medical certificates. However, those medical certificates have been ignored and continuously enquiry was listed. The workman had doubted the genuineness of the enquiry proceedings. However, his request for changing the enquiry officer was not accepted.
(v).On perusal of endorsement made by the District Supply Officer in the trip sheet that the lorry was seized with paddy bags. However, there is no mention about the quantity. The management had failed to establish and prove that the trip sheet was misused by the workman and illegally transported 298 paddy bags and 45K.G rice bags from Dindigul to Pudukkottai District on 20.02.2007 using the lorry belonging to the Co-operative Society.
(vi)Ex.M23 is the copy of draft pay order dated 22.02.2007 for payment of Rs.10,000/- as penalty to the District Supply Officer. However, the genuineness of the said document has been disputed 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 by the workman. When the management was directed to produce the original pay order, they have not done so. Therefore, the evidence of WW1 that the lorry was seized only for the reason of overloading has to be accepted and to rebut the said evidence, no evidence has been produced by the management. The admission of WW1 reveals that the workman had taken the vehicle without permission of Tahsildar outside the district. However, that itself cannot be assumed without proof that the petitioner had committed illegal transportation because the Secretary has also been found suspended in relation to the same incident.
(vii)The charge relating to the loss of 93.5 litre of diesel has not been established. The evidence of Ww1 says that he has not written the log book because he will write in the log book only after coming back from the trip. No evidence has been produced by the management to rebut the same.
(viii)Ex.W2 log book is the details of the persons who were travelled along with the driver. On an earlier occasion, the driver had travelled along with other persons. Therefore, nothing unusual is found when the workman had been accompanied by other persons. The evidence of Mw1 points out that under their management, they have only drivers and there is no cleaner for the lorry. Again stated 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 that one Rameshbabu is a cleaner. The management has failed to establish and prove that the petitioner accommodated one Aandavan in the illegal trip without obtaining permission. No evidence has been produced by the management to show that the workman had received Rs.3000/- as cash from Murugan Transport especially he had deposed only after unloading, the cash will be given to him. Therefore, the respondent management has failed to establish and prove the charges.
(ix).In the second show cause notice issued to the workman, there is no reference about each and every misconduct committed by the workman has been proved based on documents. In such circumstances, the preponderance of probability is in favour of the workman. When the charges as against the workman have not been proved then the punishment imposed is totally disproportionate and therefore, the capital punishment imposed by the management is not justified and it amounts to victimisation. There is no pleadings or evidence on the side of the workman that he is not gainfully employed during the non-employment period. Therefore, he is not entitled to claim backwages.
6.Based upon the above said findings, the Labour Court was pleased to pass a final award wherein the order of dismissal was set aside and the 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages was awarded.
(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:
7.The learned counsel appearing for the management had submitted that the Co-operative Society is owning only one lorry and it was under
repair and the Special Officer has directed to produce the same for verification. However, without obtaining prior permission from the Special Officer, the workman has taken the lorry to Pudukottai with 289 bags of paddy and 48 bags of rice on behalf of one Murugan Transport for a rent of Rs.3,000/-.
8.The learned counsel for the management had further submitted that the District Supply Officer , Pudukottai intercepted the lorry and confiscated the paddy bags and rice bags and also impounded the vehicle. A penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed. In fact, the workman had used 93.5 litre of diesel (valued Rs.3,200/-) for smuggling the PDS rice and paddy. He has also not maintained the log book or trip sheet which is mandatory. That apart, he had received a sum of Rs.3,000/- for carrying out this work on behalf of Murugan Transport. That apart, he carried a load-man in the lorry which is not permissible. He had further submitted that the domestic enquiry was held on 20.11.2007, 01.12.2007 and 26.12.2007. Though notices were received by the respondent, he has not participated in the enquiry. However, he was continuously sending letters seeking adjournments. Finally, the enquiry was 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 fixed on 26.12.2007 and it was intimated to him through registered post. Though workman had received the said notice, he has not chosen to attend the enquiry. He had not even forwarded any letter seeking adjournment for the enquiry to be held on 26.12.2007. Therefore, the enquiry officer had set him exparte.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner management had further submitted that the preliminary award is vitiated, in view of the fact that the non-furnishing of Section 81 enquiry report has been found to be fatal. However, 81 enquiry is not at all connected with the charges. That apart, the charges are not based upon Section 81 enquiry report. The petitioner has been paid the subsistence allowance during the enquiry period. Therefore, the preliminary award of the Labour Court is contrary to the material records and hence, he prayed for setting aside the preliminary award.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further stated that after preliminary award has been set aside, the Labour Court without giving any opportunity to the Management to substantiate the charges, has straight away invoked Section 11-A of I.D.Act. Section 11-A of the Act provides only with regard to the quantum of punishment and the same cannot be invoked to find out the genuineness of the enquiry. The learned counsel had further submitted that the Labour Court was not right in passing a final award in favour of the workman on the ground that the preliminary award has not been challenged 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 without taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering case. Therefore, the Labour Court has not arrived at any finding whether the charges as against the workman have been proved or not. The additional evidence that was let in by the management has not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the workman in his deposition has categorically admitted that he has taken the lorry from one district to other district and the paddy was seized by the District Supply Officer. The workman has also admitted that in the Tahsildhar office, penalty was imposed. The contention of the workman that only for overloading, the vehicle was seized is not correct in view of the fact that for the offence of overloading, only the traffic police would interfere and the District Supply Officer would not be a competent person. He had further submitted that in the trip sheet, the entries have to be made prior to the starting of the trip. Therefore, the submissions made on the side of the workman, he used to fill up the trip sheet only after the trip is over is not legally sustainable.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioner management had further submitted that the workman had received cash of Rs.3,000/- under Exs.M2 and M4. This payment was made only after completion of the trip. Therefore, the workman cannot dispute the same that he had received a sum of Rs. 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 3,000/- after the trip has been completed. He further submitted that the petitioner smuggled paddy and rice from one district to another district has not been disputed and it is a serious misconduct which warrants imposition of capital punishment. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the preliminary award as well as the final award of the Labour Court.
13.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the workman had submitted that the charge memo was belatedly issued after a period of 7 months. On 30.11.2007, a communication was addressed to the enquiry officer to get the services of an observer. However, the request was rejected and no documents were supplied to him. However, the said opportunity was not utilized by the management and no documents were furnished to the workman.
14.The learned counsel for the workman had further submitted that the Labour Court has arrived at a specific finding that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and reasonable manner. The subsistence allowance has not been provided pending domestic enquiry. Therefore, the workman has been put into a prejudicial position and hence, infringement of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel had further submitted that since the Labour Court had given a finding that the domestic enquiry is vitiated and therefore, the enquiry comes under the category of invalid enquiry/no enquiry. In such circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly found Exs.M3 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 to M11, M16 and M17 cannot be taken into consideration for passing final orders because they relate to defective domestic enquiry. He had further submitted that there is a discrepancy with regard to the number of paddy bags and rice bags that is said to have been seized by the Tahsildhar and District Supply Officer.
15.The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that the rent will be collected from Murugan Transport only after completion of the trip. However, in the present case, the trip was curtailed by the Revenue Official. Therefore, no amount was collected from the Murugan Transport and there is no misappropriation on the part of the workman. He had further submitted that 93.5 litres of diesel was used for travelling from Dindigul to Pudukottai. Therefore, the same cannot be considered to be waste of fuel. That apart, the trip was undertaken only as ordered by the Special Officer for delivery of paddy bags. He had further submitted that since the trip sheet were seized by the Tahsildhar, there is no question of alteration made on the part of the workman. The log book would be filled up only after completion of the trip and the same will be signed by the driver. However, in the instant case, the paddy bags and lorry were seized before completion of trip and there is no chance to fill up the log book.
16.The learned counsel for the respondent workman had further submitted that as far as the charge of one Andavan travelled in the lorry along 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 with the workman on 20.02.2007 is concerned, the said person is a load man in the Society and on many occasions, Andavan had accompanied him as cleaner. He further submitted that there is no disobedience of the order to surrender the lorry. The imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- was not paid by the workman, but it was paid only by the farmer namely Sivasubramani for the seizure. In fact, the seizure was made not on the ground of illegal transportation of paddy, but due to overloading of paddy bags. Only on this ground, the Secretary of the Society has been suspended. The learned counsel had further submitted that the management has not proved the case with supply of documents and preponderance of probability. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly chosen to pass a preliminary award on the ground that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair manner and the charges as against the workman have not been proved. Hence, he prayed for sustaining both the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.
17.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.
(C).Discussion:
18.The charge memo issued to the workman on 17.10.2007 has been marked as Ex.M7. A perusal of the charge memo reveals the following charges.
(i).The workman has taken the lorry belonging to the Society 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 without obtaining prior permission for Murugan Transport and he had carried 298 paddy bags and 45 Kg of rice which is smuggling of paddy and rice.
(ii).The log book has not been properly maintained by the workman.
(iii).The workman had received Rs.3000/- as lorry rent for carrying paddy and rice on behalf of Murugan Transport. This amount has not been credited to the Society account and therefore, it has been misappropriated.
(iv).The lorry has been used for smuggling of paddy and rice and therefore, the workman has caused the loss of 93.5 litre of diesel.
(v).The trip sheet for the dated 20.02.2007 refers to 200 bags of paddy. However, when the District Special Officer intercepted the lorry, he had found that there are 298 paddy bags and 45 Kg of rice.
(vi).The log book has been maintained only till 01.02.2007. Thereafter, he has not maintained the same. The workman had taken along with him an unauthorized person namely Andavan in his lorry and thereby, he has violated the duties and responsibilities as driver of the Society. After suspension, the workman has not handed over his charges to the cleaner namely Rameshbabu.
15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024
(vii).The activities of the workman has caused indiscipline among the workman.
19.For the said charge memo, the workman has submitted his explanation on 27.10.2007 which is marked as Ex.M4. A perusal of the explanation submitted by the workman reveals that even the Special Officer as well as the Secretary of the Society have threatened him on 19.02.2007 to run the lorry for Murugan Transport for carrying paddy from Sithaiyankottai to Pudukkottai. The workman in his explanation has not specifically denied the charges that he had smuggled 45 Kg of Ration Rice during his said trip. He has also not denied that the vehicle was intercepted by a squad headed by the District Supply Officer and the goods were seized and the vehicle was impounded. Even assuming that the Special Officer and the Secretary had directed him to carry paddy from one district to another district, it is not the allegation of the workman that they had threatened him to smuggle the PDS rice.
20.The second charge levied as against the petitioner is that he had misappropriated Rs.3000/- received as rent from Murugan Transport. In his explanation, the workman had submitted that the Secretary and the Special Officer stated that they have already received the rent and therefore, they directed him to take the vehicle without waiting for formal orders. Ex.W3 is 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 the receipt for payment of Rs.3000/- by Sri Murugan Roadways dated 20.02.2007. Therefore, it is clear that the payment of Rs.3000/- has been made by Murugan Transport during the onward trip itself. Hence, the contention of the workman that the payment would be made by the customers only after the goods are unloaded is not correct. The workman has not filed any document to show that he had credited Rs.3000/- to the account of the Society.
21.The third charge as against the workman is that he had caused the wastage of 93.5 litres of diesel to a tune of about Rs.3200/- for transportation of paddy bags. It is an admitted fact that Ex.M3 is the cash receipt produced on the side of the management which was issued by Murugan Transport. Therefore, it is clear that the vehicle was taken only with the permission of the Society. In such circumstances, the allegation as against the workman that the charge as against the workman had committed waste of 93.5 litre of diesel is not legally sustainable.
22.The fourth charge as against the petitioner is that he had made some corrections in the trip sheet with an intention to tamper. The workman in his explanation to Charge No.4 has submitted that he had overloaded and therefore, he had segregated the paddy bags and by mistake, some of the paddy bags were not properly downloaded by the delivery man. Therefore, the excess rice bags were found in the lorry. This explanation is not 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 acceptable. Admittedly, he was not authorized to carry rice bags which has been seized by District Supply Officer. The workman has carried additional 98 bags of paddy after making a note in the trip sheet that he has carried only 200 bags of paddy. Therefore, the said explanation submitted by the workman is unbelievable.
23.The fifth charge as against the workman is that he has not maintained the log book properly after 01.02.2007. The workman has submitted an explanation that the Secretary as well as the Special Officer took their own time in making initials in the log book. Therefore, he had no opportunity to record the same. As far as this explanation is concerned, the Management has not placed any contra evidence on record. I am of the opinion that the charges have not been proved.
24.As far as the sixth charge is concerned, the workman has been alleged to have carried one Andavan along with him unauthorisedly in the lorry. In the explanation submitted by the workman, it is submitted that he is a loadman working in the Society for more than 20 years. The said Andavan had accompanied him. The management has not provided with any contra evidence. The explanation offered by the petitioner is acceptable.
25.As far as the seventh charge is concerned, the workman is alleged to have not handed over the charge to the lorry owner on 23.02.2007. After he has been suspended, the workman has submitted in his explanation to the 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 effect that he had handed over charge on 28.02.2007 itself. This explanation offered by the workman has not been disputed by the management.
26.As far as the eighth charge is concerned, he had acted in an illegal manner and caused indiscipline among the members of the Society. In fact, it is clear that the workman has carried more than 98 bags of paddy than what is mentioned in the trip sheet. Apart from that he had illegally smuggled 48 Kg of PDS rice. In such circumstances, this charge has clearly been proved.
27.The Labour Court has not properly appreciated the charges and the explanation offered by the workman and has proceeded to hold that all the charges as against the workman have not been proved. As far as the first charge relating to smuggling of paddy bags and rice bags are concerned, Exs.M23 clearly reveals that the workman had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of Demand Draft to Pudukkottai District Supply Officer. This will clearly indicate that the vehicle was intercepted by the District Supply Officer, Pudukkottai and a penalty has been levied. According to the workman, the penalty was imposed only for overloading. If it is a case of overloading, the vehicle would have been intercepted only by the traffic police. However, in the present case, the District Supply Officer has intercepted the vehicle and a penalty has been levied and it has been paid by the workman. Carrying smuggled PDS rice is a serious misconduct. The Labour Court has not properly appreciated the documents in the light of the 19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm ) W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024 explanation offered by the workman.
(D).Conclusion:
28.In view of the above said deliberations, this Court is of the considered opinion that even though the domestic enquiry has not been conducted in a fair manner, the management has utilized the opportunity given by the Labour Court and let in fresh evidence to prove the charges as against the workman and there is no necessity to set aside the preliminary award. Therefore, the final award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of dismissal is hereby set aside and the order of dismissal passed in the domestic enquiry is hereby confirmed.
29.Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the final award and confirming the order of punishment of dismissal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.11.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
20/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm )
W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024
To
1.The Labour Court,
Trichy (Dindigul Camp Court)
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm )
W.P(MD).No.26040 of 2024
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD).No.26040 of 2024
and WMP(MD).No.22083 of
2024
27.11.2025
22/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 04:32:25 pm )