Madras High Court
Balasubramaniam M. vs Management Of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar And ... on 21 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)ILLJ362MAD, (2000)1MLJ597
Author: V.S. Sirpurkar
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, M. Chockalingam
JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. The appellant, who had lost in a writ petition before the learned single Judge, has come up in this appeal. In that writ petition, he challenged the Labour Court Award. The Labour Court Award was also against him in the sense that his dismissal after the domestic enquiry by the first respondent was upheld by the Labour Court. The learned single Judge, also upheld the award, and that is why the appellant/petitioner is before us. Petitioner/appellant was working as an assistant in the employer Company, and at the relevant time he was working in Pondicherry, where for the tax saving reason, the purchasers of Chassis used to take the delivery, because the tax is lower there. For that purpose, this Company had opened an Office in Pondicherry, and the appellant/petitioner was working there. Complaints started pouring against the appellant/ petitioner that he was receiving unauthorised payments from the customers. Therefore, a notice came to be served on him and the explanation was called for. The explanation was unsatisfactory, and therefore the Company started the departmental proceedings against him under the Standing Orders and examined number of witnesses, and after that, the petitioner came to be dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant very strenuously urges before us that the whole approach of the learned single Judge was faulty. The learned counsel points out that the learned single Judge probably thought that the preliminary order for holding the departmental enquiry to be fair, was not challenged by the appellant, and therefore, the appellant could not say anything about the fairness of the enquiry, before the learned single Judge.
3. We have gone through the order of the learned single Judge, and we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. It is indeed true that the learned single Judge has, at a point of time, mentioned the fact that the initial order was not challenged by the appellant. Yet, we find that there is enough discussion in the learned single Judge's order to suggest that the enquiry was fair and proper. The learned Judge has taken a considered view of almost the whole departmental proceedings, and has confirmed the finding of the Labour Court that the enquiry was fair and proper.
4. As a second stage of the argument, the learned counsel for the appellant very vehemently contended that in the departmental enquiry, the management was represented by a legally qualified Personnel Manager on one side, and whereas the appellant as a matriculate employee, appeared on the other side, and that too, when the matriculate employee had specifically sought the service of the lawyer to defend him, that was denied to him. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent seriously takes an exception to this, and points out that at no point of time, before the enquiry began, the appellant/petitioner ever asked for the services of a lawyer. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that there is Standing Order that in the departmental enquiry, the help of an outsider will not be permitted. The learned counsel very fervently argued that the Standing Order also provides that even if the services of the outsider were provided, they were only by way of an observer, meaning thereby that the said outsider could not take an active part in the departmental enquiry, so as to help the appellant/petitioner. From this the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the non-availability of the lawyer in the departmental proceedings would tender the whole proceedings as unfair.
5. In the first place, there is no reason for us to dispute the statement made by the first respondent's Counsel that at no point of time before the enquiry began, the appellant sought the legal help. On the other hand, he pointed out that it has been endorsed by the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge that the categorical statement came to be made by him that he did not need the help of any outsider. The learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that having realised the futility of such services in the wake of the language of the Standing Order, the appellant might have done this. We can understand that however, the fact remains that at that stage, the appellant refused the outsider help. That outsider could have been even the lawyer. The endorsement suggests that the appellant wanted to go with the enquiry all by himself.
6. This apart from the fact that in fact there has been a very effective cross examination on the part of the witnesses, who were examined. Not only this, the appellant/ petitioner has examined himself and he examined his own witnesses also. All these go against the contention that the enquiry was not conducted in keeping with the established principles of natural justice and fair play.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant then vehemently argued that in fact the charge, which was that the appellant received some unauthorised amounts from the customers, was a mockery, as in fact those amounts were received only for being paid to the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, who were to clear the vehicles. The learned counsel points out that all the customers were in great hurry to get their vehicles registered, and as such it was an accepted truth that the money had to be paid at the arms of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The learned counsel asked us to consider this fact as the stark reality. We do not wish to go into all that. We only wish to say that once it was accepted by the appellant that he accepted certain payments, it was up to him to prove that such payments were authorised. The Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge have given the finding that there have been complaints against him. We failed to follow that if the customers had not felt aggrieved and had in fact paid the money to be paid to the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, then why there were unnecessary complaints against the appellant.
8. We asked a specific question to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the departmental proceedings were the result of some malpractices reported by any of the company Officials against him. The learned counsel fairly accepted that the appellant had not done any malpractice. Under such circumstances, to go into all these questions would be again to go into the realm of facts, which even the learned single Judge should not have done. In a recently decided decision reported in Indian Overseas Bank v. IOB Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Anr., the Supreme Court has commented heavily on the High Court appreciating the evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters. For those reasons we are unable to agree with the appellant. The appeal has no merits, and the same must be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.