Madras High Court
The Management Of Metropolitan vs The Presiding Officer on 5 February, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CAV ON 11/01/2013
DATED: 05/02/2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.36475 of 2002 and
W.P.M.P.No.54825 of 2002
The Management of Metropolitan
Transport Corporation,
Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai
Chennai-600 002. ... Petitioner
(Formerly known as Pallavan
Transport Corporation, Chennai)
vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.S.T.Jagadeesan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Petition No.1 of 1997, dated 13.02.2002, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Munirathnam
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ayyadurai for R2
R1-Tribunal
* * * * *
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Award, dated 13.02.2002, made in Petition No.1 of 1997, on the file of the first respondent.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner Management submits that the second respondent filed a complaint No.1 of 1997, before the first respondent, to set aside the the order of dismissal, dated 27.10.1995. According to the second respondent, he was employed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation on 24.10.1974 and he had put in a total service of 22 years and his staff number is 7908. He had heart problem and he was advised by the Doctors not to do heavy work. He made a representation, on 25.02.1984 seeking light duty and it was accepted on condition that he has to give up all his privileges and benefits conferred on the other Conductors and he was assigned light duty for ten years. Subsequently, he made another representation for alternative job on 09.03.1988, but the same was not considered by the petitioner Corporation. According to the second respondent, it was submitted that due to his health condition, he was forced to take leave including medical leave and medical leave was also sanctioned by the authorities. Subsequently, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 28.10.1993 and he submitted his explanation on 18.12.1993. He was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 04.03.1994. The Medical Board examined him about the neck problem. But, he objected to that and produced all the medical reports about his heart problem. When he went for duty, he was refused duty on 13.03.1994 and he made a representation to the Branch Manager and the same was not considered by him. Further, he was issued a memo, dated 02.04.1994, and he submitted his explanation on 10.05.1994. Subsequently, another charge memo was issued to him and he submitted his explanation denying the charges.
3. Further, the petitioner Management submits that they issued a charge memo, dated 18.10.1994, on the second respondent, about being continuously absent without prior permission. The second respondent denied the charges and gave explanation, by letter dated 30.10.1994. Subsequently, the second respondent made a representation to the petitioner Corporation, on 22.05.1995 and 13.06.1995 and the same was rejected by the petitioner Corporation. An enquiry was conducted on 03.07.1995. Based on the enquiry report, a second show cause notice, dated 05.09.1995, was issued to the second respondent and he submitted his explanation. Considering the proper material, the second respondent was dismissed from service by an order, dated 27.10.1995 and the appeal was also dismissed on 20.05.1996. Hence, the second respondent filed a complaint No.1 of 1997 before the first respondent.
4. The petitioner Corporation further submits that they filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the averments made in the complaint filed by the second respondent, wherein it was contended that the second respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation, on 27.10.1974. During the employment, the complainant had given a petition stating that he was suffering from spinal cord problem and he was given light duty for a temporary period on humanitarian grounds. During January, 1994, he was referred to Medical Board by the Corporation and the Medical Board after, after examining the second respondent certified that the complainant had pain in the neck during April, 1993. The X'rays taken at that time shows no evidence of cervical spondylesis. Neither does he have any backache. By report, dated 04.03.1994, it was submitted that the second respondent has no orthopedic problem and therefore he was directed to go for line duty as Conductor. But, the second respondent failed to obey the directions of the petitioner Management and absented himself for duty on his own accord without prior intimation or sanction of leave with effect from 01.05.1994. After observing all the formalities, a disciplinary action was initiated against the second respondent. He was charge sheeted and he submitted his explanation. Since the explanation given by the delinquent was not satisfactory and in order to provide more opportunity to the complainant, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer found that the second respondent was guilty of all charges levelled against him and based on the enquiry findings, the second respondent was dismissed from service for his unauthorized absence with effect from 01.05.1994 by Order, dated 27.10.1995.
5. Further, the petitioner Management submits that without considering the material evidences on record, the first respondent, by Order, dated 13.02.2002, set aside the order of dismissal, dated 27.10.1995 and directed the petitioner Management to reinstate the second respondent with full backwages and other attendant benefits. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner Management has filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.
6. The highly competent counsel Mr.G.Munirathnam appearing for the petitioner submits that the second respondent herein had been appointed as Conductor on 24.10.1974. He had heart problem and he was advised by doctors not to do heavy work. Therefore, the employee had made a representation for light duty and the same was assigned to him. After 10 years, the employee made another representation for alternative job and it was rejected. Thereafter, he was on medical leave. Subsequently, a charge memo was issued after five years and the employee was requested to appear before the Medical Board. The Medical Board had not considered about the employee's heart problem. Thereafter, Memo was issued and explanation was received. The employee was continuously absent. Hence, the petitioner herein had conducted domestic enquiry after issuing show cause notices, and he was dismissed from service. The employee was given light duty for a temporary period on humanitarian grounds. Further, the employee had stated that he was suffering from spinal card problem, but the X-rays showed no evidence of cervical spondylosis. The highly competent counsel further submits that the employee had absented from duty on his own accord without prior intimation to the Corporation. Therefore, he was dismissed from service since the employee was absent with effect from 01.05.1994 by Order, dated 27.10.1995.
7. The highly competent counsel Mr.V.Ayyadurai appearing for the employee submits that the employee was appointed with the Transport Corporation as a Conductor in the year 1974. After about 10 years, he had heart problem and he was advised by the doctors not to do heavy work. Hence, the employee made representation to the Corporation for light duty. The same was granted by the employer and he was assigned duty in KMPl Station and also other places, where light duty can be permitted. Due to working condition, his health condition deteriorated and he was forced to take leave including medical leave. Under the circumstances, the Corporation had directed the employee to appear before the Medical Board and accordingly, he appeared. The Medical Board examined him only about his neck problem. Further, the Medical Board had not submitted the entire Medical records pertaining to the employees heart problem. Thereafter, the employee was not given any job. Subsequently, he was issued a Memo 02.04.1994. Thereafter, another memo was issued and one more show cause notice was issued on 18.10.1994. After receiving his explanation and letters for alternative job, the Management rejected his request and terminated him from service in spite of the fact that he had rendered 22 years of service with the Management.
8. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that the employee had established his case before the first respondent herein after marking 10 documents and the first respondent had come to a conclusion that the charges are not proved against the employee. Therefore, the first respondent directed the Management to reinstate him with full backwages and other benefits. The highly competent counsel further submits that the first respondent passed the award after scrutinizing the relevant documents produced by both parties. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
9. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the first respondent, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at by the first respondent for granting relief to the employee. Therefore, the above writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Petition No.1 of 1997, dated 13.02.2002, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05/02/2014
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
r n s
To
The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.36475 of 2002
05/02/2014