Madras High Court
K.M.Nagaraj vs M/S R.R.Donnelley India Outsource ... on 15 February, 2019
Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 05.12.2024
ORDERS DELIVERED ON : 24.01.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019
& W.M.P.No.35620 of 2019
W.P.No.12478 of 2021:
K.M.Nagaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s R.R.Donnelley India Outsource Private Ltd.
Rep.by its Authorised Signatory
No.43A, 1st Main Road
Chennai – 600 028. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected in
I.D.No.238 of 2014 dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer – III,
Additional Labour Court, Chennai, partly allowed the claim petition in I.D.No.238
of 2014, quash the same and also direct the respondent / Management to reinstate
the petitioner with back wages and all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Nagaraj, Party-in-Person
For Respondent : Mr.P.Raghunathan
for M/s T.S.Gopalan & Co.
Page No.1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019
W.P.No.34856 of 2019:
The Management of
M/s R.R.Donnelley India Outsource Private Ltd.,
No.43A, 1st Main Road
R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028.
Rep.by its Vice President - Legal ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.M.Nagaraj ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the III Addl. Labour
Court, Chennai in I.D.No.238 of 2014 and quash its award dated 15.02.2019 and
pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raghunathan
for M/s T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Nagaraj, Party-in-Person
COMMON ORDER
A. The Petitons:
These two Writ Petitions challenge the award dated 15.02.2019 made in I.D.No.238 of 2014, and as such, they are taken up and disposed of by this common order.
Page No.2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 B. Factual Background:
2. The factual background in which these Writ Petitions arise is that the Workman joined the services of the Management as a Graphic Designer (L1) on 29.10.2005. In 2010, he worked as a senior graphic designer (L2) on Allen & Overy Teams. While so, on 25.08.2011, the Workman met with an accident in the cab provided by the Management while returning to home and sustained injuries in his head. It is stated that the Management bore the entire hospitalisation expenses.
After recovery, the Workman reported for work on 13.12.2011 and his full salary during the interregnum period was also paid.
2.1. Thereafter, he was shifted to type-setting service instead of designing- job, as it was less complex. He continued to work in the said line for 1 ½ years. In the meanwhile, the 3rd party which awarded the project, in which the Workman was performing the type-setting work, withdrew the project with effect from 13.07.2013. As such, the said work became unavailable. Therefore, the Workman was directed to undergo a test for assessment to be inducted into the creative service team and Fedex office team. However, despite repeated opportunities, the Page No.3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 Workman was unable to meet the expected level and was underrated.
2.2. At this stage the Workman expressed his willingness to attend the test for the general pool team. That opportunity was also granted to him, but again he was unable to meet the expected level. It is stated on behalf of the Management that to ensure that the Workman gets accommodated in the work, he was even granted 15 days leave to prepare himself for taking up the assessment test for the Fedex office team and creative service team. He was further given training to qualify for his assignment in December 2013 and January 2014 and despite the same, the Workman did not show any positive result.
2.3. Under the said circumstances, a letter dated 13.02.2014 was issued, in which the reasons that influenced the Management's decision were detailed, leading to the termination of the Workman's services. Aggrieved by the same, the Workman raised a dispute and the conciliation failing, the claim petition was taken on file as I.D.No.238 of 2014.
C.Case of the Management:
Page No.4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019
3. It is the case of Workman that when the Allen & Overy type-setting teams were closed in July 2013, the Management deliberately gave a tough assessment project to him and they declared the result that he scored 50 %. One N ar r e n , HR AVP asked him to quit the job, promising him to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation for the accident package. However, the Workman declined to accept the same and brought the issue to the knowledge of his higher officials.
3.1 On 12.02.2014, the Workman had a meeting with one S. P o r c h e l v a n , Company Legal Counsel and N ar r e n , HR AVP. As instructed by the Management, both of them forced the Workman to give a resignation letter. They even behaved rudely; the Workman was not allowed to have water, and the conference room was closed by deploying security personnel in front of it. Filthy language was also used against him. When he sent a mail to the Head of HR, that he wanted to avail leave for a few days since he became depressed, on 13.02.2014, he was issued with a termination order. The Workman has also made several allegations against S. P o r c h e l v a n and other named officials in the claim petition. Further, the Workman claimed for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. Page No.5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 D.Case of the Management:
4. The claim petition was resisted by a detailed counter statement, where again, the Management had given the service particulars and what are all the tests which were directed to be undertaken by the Workman, to continue his employment and the fact that despite the repeated opportunities, the Workman could not clear the test. It is contended that there is no placement after the type- setting unit was closed, to suit the skills of the petitioner. In respect of the available employment, the petitioner's skills were found to be wanting. Therefore, they prayed that the claim be rejected.
E.Proceedings before the Labour Court:
5. With the said pleadings, the Trial Court took up an enquiry, in which the Workman examined himself as W.W.1 and Exs.W.2 to W.25 were marked. On behalf of the Management, one S.Porchelvan was examined as L.W.1 and Exs.M.1 to M.6 were marked.
5.1. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties and framed five Page No.6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 points for consideration, which are as follows:-
“1. Whether the termination of the service of the petitioner by the respondent on 13.02.2014 is unfair and unsustainable?
2. Whether the respondents have extended all possible and suitable alternate service opportunities for the petitioner to continue the employment?
3. If not, whether the termination of the petitioner has to be set aside?
4. If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits?
5. What are all the other reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for?” 5.2. In respect of Point Nos.1 to 3, the Labour Court after detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence held that the termination of service was fair and proper and found that the Management has extended all possible and suitable alternate service arrangements for the Workman to continue his employment and the termination of his service by the Management on 13.02.2014 is not unfair and need not be set aside.
5.3. The Labour Court answered Point No.4 that the Workman is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement or back wages or other attendant benefits.
Still while considering the answer to Point No.5, considering certain facts that the Workman was not in gainful employment and the accident happened in the early Page No.7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 hours at 3.00 am., while going home from the office and the fact that the Workman is continuing treatment also, held that monetary compensation is payable to the Workman. Thereafter, the Labour Court computed by taking into account the last drawn salary and considered the fact that the Workman has completed eight years of service and accordingly by doubling the pay of Rs.52,158/- computed the compensation at Rs.4,17,264/- and by making further addition arrived at a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- and directed the Management to pay the said compensation.
5.4. Aggrieved by the portion of the award directing to pay the compensation, the Management is before this Court. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim concerning reinstatement with back wages and denial of service, the Workman is before this Court.
F.The Submissions:
6. M r K. M . N a g a r a j , the Workman appearing as party-in-person, would submit that he joined the service in the year 2005, at the age of 23 years was given increments, promotions etc, and moved up a ladder within a short span of six years. On account of his hard work, he was declared the best performer in July Page No.8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 2009. While so, on 24.08.2011, even though he attended only the second shift, between 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm, because the client had given some urgent work, he stayed back at the office and went home next day early morning at about 2.45 am., in the company cab. However, he met with a road accident and was in a coma for about a month. Fortunately, he recovered but the accident had caused a cognitive impact, which is recorded in the medical report as well as in the discharge summary. The extended hours of duty is at the instance of the Management. The accident has deprived him of performing work with a sound mind. Thereafter, when he resumed duty from 13.12.2011 onwards, he even received appraisal letters from the Management. The Management without considering the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 started discriminating against the Workman. Even though the Workman has passed the skill test, the Management raised the bar for passing to a higher percentage.
6.1. It is at this stage, as stated by the Workman, one N a r r e n had informed him that on 11.02.2014 there was a meeting. In the meeting, there was an unlawful approach and P o r s e l v a n , Company Legal Advisor, N a r r e n , HR AVP and Anu , HR Senior, who were present, cornered the Workman, causing him to feel Page No.9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 severe mental distress. Thereafter, the termination order was issued. No show- cause notice was issued before the issuance of the termination order. Further, in respect of the allegations against the Workman, no opportunity was given to him. Additionally, he would also submit that in the case of the Workman the principles of the open door policy have been completely negated and violated. Under similar circumstances, for one of his colleagues, a show cause notice was issued. The Workman is the sole breadwinner of the family. There is no documentary evidence regarding the so called assessment test. The assessment test was conducted in a biased manner. The Management had also offered a job in an L1 position for a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/-, whereas, previously, the Workman was getting a salary of Rs.26,079/- per month. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court has to be quashed and he has to be reinstated into service with all benefits.
6.2. Per contr a, M r . Ra g h u n a t h a n , the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management by taking this Court through the termination order and the pleadings and the evidence would submit that it can be seen that in this case, the Management had acted fairly and had done every possible action to continue the Workman in employment because he suffered grave injuries in the accident on the Page No.10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 way to home from work. Initially, he was accommodated in the type-setting team. Only because the said work is not there, and the Workman was unable to perform other complex works and he did not clear the requisite skill test to be fit for other employment. Finding no other option, exercising the power to terminate simpliciter the Workman was terminated. In the said circumstances, there was no question of issuing any show cause notice or conducting domestic enquiry.
6.3. The Labour Court appraised the case of the parties in detail and after considering the evidence on record, held regarding Points Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the Management. Once the termination is found to be fair and proper, the payment of compensation does not arise. The Labour Court only took into account the accident which had happened during the early morning and awarded compensation of Rs.4,45,000/-. Apart from the above, in respect of the accident, separately the Workman had received a compensation of Rs.12,35,103/- from the Management. He would submit that no further compensation could have been granted on sympathetic grounds. The Labour Court has no such powers. G.Discussion and Findings:
Page No.11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
7.1. Firstly, in this case, on a perusal of the termination order issued by the Management, it can be seen that in various paragraphs, allegations were made against the Workman. For instance, in Page No.3 of the order, the following allegations are made, “Please note that you have by your conduct and actions refused to accept the several opportunities given by the Company for your continuance in employment, but instead made unreasonable demands and made false allegations as noted above and acted against the Company's interests, violating the rules and regulations of the Company.” 7.2. Thus, it can be seen that though the Management has a right to pass an order of termination simpliciter when it has chosen to cause stigma on the Workman by mentioning these allegations, then the order of termination cannot be held to be just and proper as no opportunity was granted to the Workman and no domestic enquiry was held in respect of the allegations. Therefore, I am not in a position to agree with the award of the Labour Court that the termination was fair and proper.
Page No.12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 7.3 Coming to the relief that can be granted to the Workman, I consider the following aspects :
(a) In this case, the Management has let in ample evidence and after reading the entire case of the Management and the evidence as a whole, I agree with the Labour Court in finding that firstly, when the Workman suffered an accident, the entire hospital expenses were met by the Management. When the Workman recovered and reported for duty, he was not non-employed, but alternative employment in the type-setting job was granted to the Workman and the Workman also worked for about 13 months without any hiccup whatsoever. Only because the type-setting work became unavailable, the Management had to consider the Workman to be placed in other works. Also, from the evidence on record, it is seen that repeated opportunities were granted to the Workman, however, unfortunately, he could not pass the grades and to the capability of the Workman, there is no available post is also considered by this Court.
(b) While the Workman can have every grievance regarding the non-
employment, the kind of allegations he went on to make right from the Page No.13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 conciliation proceedings and in the pleadings and up to the written arguments submitted before this Court, is a little far-fetched and when such serious allegations made against the Management and various officials, there is no proper proof in respect of the same.
(c) The error on the part of the Management is to have made those allegations in the termination order and the termination is held improperly only on the said ground.
(d) Considering the submissions made regarding disability and accident, the Court takes into account the facts that besides footing the hospital bill, it is also stated across the bar that the workman had received a compensation of Rs.12,35,103/-;
(e) The period of litigation, the period of original employment, and the period of employment after the accident are also considered;
7.4 By taking into account the overall circumstances, I am of the view that Page No.14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 this is a fit case where compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages can only be ordered.
7.5. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the Labour Court had already quantified the same as Rs.4,45,000/-. Though there can be different ways and means of quantifying the compensation, either by following the method laid down by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in O.P.Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., and others 1, or following the VRS method, ultimately, the Court has to consider that whether the compensation being paid is fair and proper. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- as quantified by the Labour Court is a fair compensation.
H.The Result:
8. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of on the following terms:
(i) The award passed in I.D.No.238 of 2014 dated 15.02.2019 passed by the 1 (1986) 4 SCC 337 Page No.15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 Presiding Officer – III, Additional Labour Court, Chennai is set aside;
(ii) The non-employment of the workman by the order of termination dated 13.02.2014 is held as unjustified;
(iii) The Workman will be entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages;
(iv) The Management, M/s. R. R. D o n n e l l e y India O u t s o u r c e Priv at e Ltd. shall pay a sum of Rs.4,45,000/-, to the Workman – K.M.Nagaraj;
(v) 50% of the compensation amount has already been deposited to the credit of I.D.No.238 of 2014 and the Workman will be entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest if any;
(vi) The balance 50 % of the compensation shall be paid by the Management to the Workman within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a website uploaded copy of this order without waiting for the certified copy of the order;
(vii) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.01.2025 Neutral citation : Yes Jer Page No.16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 To The Presiding Officer – III, Additional Labour Court, Chennai. Page No.17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., Jer Writ Petition Nos.12478 of 2021 and 34856 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.35620 of 2019 24.01.2025 Page No.18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis