Madras High Court
Texmaco Ltd. Rep. By Its ... vs K.Mounsamy on 2 December, 2008
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 02-12-2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.3129 of 2003 Texmaco Ltd. Rep. By its Sr.Vice-President, 1050, Dhamodar Centre, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.K.Mounsamy 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in respect of the impugned award passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.189 of 1999, dated 27.8.2001 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan (R2) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Company challenging the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999.
3. It has been stated that the first respondent had joined the petitioner Company at Coimbatore, on 19.3.83. While so, in the month of July, 1998, he had absented himself from duty without applying for leave and without obtaining the prior permission from the management of the petitioner Company. Thus, the first respondent was unauthorisedly absent from duty, from 10.7.98. After having been absent from duty for more than 15 days, he had reported for work only on 27.7.98. Therefore, the management of the petitioner Company had taken a decision to terminate the first respondent from service for his unauthorised absence from work for more than 15 days. Accordingly, the first respondent had been served with the termination order, on 27.7.98. Even though the first respondent had received the termination order without any protest and without seeking for a domestic enquiry, he had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.189 of 1999. The second respondent Labour Court had set aside the termination order and directed the reinstatement of the first respondent with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits, by its award, dated 27.8.2001. In such circumstances, the petitioner Company has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001, in I.D.No.189 of 1999, is arbitrary, against the weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The Labour Court ought to have considered the fact that the first respondent had absented himself from duty for more than 15 days, from 10.7.98 till 26.7.98, unauthorisedly, and that he had deserved such a punishment. Further, during the month of June, 1999, the Coimbatore Office of the petitioner Company had been closed and all the employees were given three months notice, as well as the salary due to them. Therefore, the award of the second respondent Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of the first respondent in the service of the petitioner Company, is illegal, and it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, since the petitioner company is not in existence from the month of June, 1999, the order reinstating the petitioner in service cannot be implemented. In such circumstances, the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999, is devoid of merits.
5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent employee. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the second respondent Labour Court had come to the right conclusion that the dismissal of the first respondent from the services of the petitioner Company, is illegal and void. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 27.8.2001, directing the reinstatement of the first respondent, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. The second respondent Labour Court had rightly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in granting the award in favour of the first respondent. Since the petitioner Company had passed an order for the alleged unauthorised absence of the first respondent, without giving a show cause notice to the first respondent and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case, the said order is clearly contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the second respondent Labour Court had rightly set aside the said order and ordered the reinstatement of the first respondent in the services of the petitioner Company, with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits.
6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Company has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the second respondent labour Court, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999.
7. The second respondent Labour Court had found that the management of the petitioner Company had alleged that the first respondent had been absent from duty, unauthorisedly. However, no notice had been given to the first respondent by the management of the petitioner Company. No enquiry had been conducted and no opportunity was given to the first respondent to defend himself. In such circumstances, it is clear that the order passed by the management of the petitioner Company, dismissing the first respondent from service, is contrary to the provisions of law, as well as the principles of natural justice. Therefore, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, this Court is not persuaded by the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Company to interfere with the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.8.2001, made in I.D.No.189 of 1999. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Internet:Yes/No 02-12-2008 Index:Yes/No csh To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.
M.JAICHANDREN J., csh W.P.No.3129 of 2003 02-12-2008