The Management v. The Presiding Officer

J U D G M E N T (Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.) The instant intra court appeals have been filed by the Transport Corporation as against the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in W.P. Nos.18607 of 2015 and 30193 of 2017.

¶2For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in these writ appeals as Management and Workman.

¶3Facts, in brief, which had given rise to the filing of the writ appeals are: The workman joined the service of the Management as a Driver on

01.11.1980 and owing to the misconduct committed by him, a charge memo dated 27.11.2009 was issued. Not satisfied with the explanation of the workman dated 05.12.2009, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry 2\14 officer, by his report dated 17.08.2010 held that the charges were proved. Based on the said report, a second show cause notice was issued to which a detailed explanation was submitted by the workman. However, as it was not found to be satisfactory, the Management imposed the punishment of removal from service by order dated 27.01.2011. Aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the workman raised an industrial dispute, in I.D. No. 24 of 2013, which was taken up by the Labour Court, Salem and by award dated 11.02.2015, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal from service and and imposed the punishment of postponement of increment with cumulative effect for a perid of two years and directed the Management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and 25% backwages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the Management filed W.P. No. 18607 of 2015 and questioning the rejection of his request by the Management to implement the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the said award was under challenge before this Court, the workman filed W.P. No. 30193 of 2019. The learned Single Judge, by the order under challenge, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the Management, allowed the writ petition filed by the workman and directed 3\14 the Management to disburse all the benefits as claimed by the workman, Hence, the present writ appeals, at the instance of the Management.

¶4Heard the learned counsel for the Management as well as the workman.

¶5The charge against the workman, which resulted in his removal from the service of the Management was that he disturbed the crew counselling meeting held on 24.11.2009 and abused the officials in filthy language. The Labour Court, after careful consideration of the materials before it, came to the conclusion that even if the charges were proved, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and thereby modified the punishment to postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, 25% backwages and all other attendant benefits. The operative portion of the award passed by the Labour Court is as hereunder: @,Wjpahf. kDjhuiu 27/1/2011y; vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfk; 4\14 gzpePf;fk; bra;J gpwg;gpj;j cj;jut[ uj;J bra;J. mtUila Cjpa cah;t[ ,uz;L Mz;LfSf;F jpuz;l gaDld; epWj;jp itf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. ,d;wpypUe;J K:d;W khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; mtUf;F gzpj;bjhlh;r;rp 25 rjtPj gpd;rk;gsk; kw;Wk; ,ju rYiffSld; kPz;Lk; gzp tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gl;L, kD gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ/@ The learned Single Judge had also dismissed the challenge made by the Management to the award by way of W.P. No. 18607 of 2015. Moreover, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the workman, as stated supra, and observed that as the workman had already attained the age of superannuation, the question of reinstatement would not arise and that the workman would be entitled to all other benefits as per the award of the Labour Court.

¶6Though the learned counsel for the Management would contend that the workman would not be entitled to any relief in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Limited V. NB. Narawade reported in (2005) 3 SCC 134, we are of the view that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts, more so, when the 5\14 workman has not committed similar misconduct earlier and the said judgment may not be applicable to the facts of this case. In W.A. No. 1835 of 2021 (S. Raja V. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited and Another), a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (SVNJ) was a member, had considered the use of abusive language and hurl of threats to employer by workman and by judgment dated 25.05.2023, it was held that the powers of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D.Act", in short) are wide enough and the Labour Court is empowered to impose a lesser punishment than the one imposed by the Management. We have categorically held in several cases that the powers of the Civil Court are very limited whereas the powers of the Labour Court under the I.D.Act, 1947 are extensive. Under Section 11-A of I.D.Act, 1947, the Labour Court's powers are wide enough to interfere and modify the punishment imposed and the award of the Labour Court granting the relief cannot be interfered with, more so, when the learned Single Judge has also confirmed the same holding that there is no perversity in the award. It would be worthwhile to extract Paragraph No.21 of the judgment in W.A.No. 1835 of 2021 for useful reference: 6\14 "21. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was introduced on 15.12.1971 and after its introduction, the Labour Court is empowered to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. Even though charges stood proved in this case, the Labour Court has every right to interfere with the same, in its wisdom as contemplated under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act, 1947. It is true that Tiruvalluvar in his Tamil Masterpiece "Tirukkural", which was referred to by the Apex Court in Kaushal Kishor V. State of U.P. And others (supra) had vindicated that wound that was made by a hateful speech will not heal and remain forever, but, however, the Poet nowhere stated that the person, who indulged in such proclamation should be punished immediately by way of dismissal from service, as the very same Poet had emphasized in Kural No.151 that , @mfH;thiuj; jh';Fk; epyk;nghyj; jd;id ,fH;thh;g; bghWj;jy; jiy/@ Translation: "To bear with those who revile us, just as the earth bears up those who dig it." Inner Tamil Meaning: jd;id btl;Lnthiua[k; tpHhky; jh';Ffpd;w epyk; nghy;. jk;ik ,fH;thiua[k;

bghWg;gnj

jiyahd gz;ghFk;/@

¶7When the matter was heard at length, on an earlier occasion, in 7\14 order to shorten the life of litigation, this Court had putforth a suggestion to the learned counsel for the workman as to whether the workman would be agreeable to give up 25% of backwages so that a finality could be reached and the workman would be able to see the colour of the coin during his lifetime.

¶8Pursuant to the suggestion of this Court, today, the workman has filed an affidavit dated 15.12.2023 and same is scanned and reproduced below: 8\14 9\14 10\14 11\14

¶9In view of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the workman giving up 25% backwages, the rest of the benefits available to him like Gratuity, Pension, etc barring entire backwages, shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amount has been paid or withdrawn by the employee pursuant to the orders of this Court, the same need not be recovered or adjusted. It is submitted on behalf of the workman, across the bar, that the workman is willing to deposit his share of the contribution to the Provident Fund in order to enable him to get better pensionary benefits and he is at liberty to do so.

¶10The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps are closed. (S.V.N.J) (K.R.S.J.) nv

15.12.2023 12\14 To The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007 13\14 W.A.oNos.a485o&oa486oofo202a S.oVAIDYANATHAN,J. AND K.oRAJASEKAR,J. nv W.A.Nos.o3485o&o3486oofo2023

15.12.2023 14\14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.12.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR W.A. Nos. 3485 & 3486 of 2023 & C.M.P. Nos. 28440 & 28442 of 2023 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007 rep. by its Managing Director. ..Appellant in both appeals Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. 2. D. Jayakumar ..Respondents in both appeals Prayer: Writ Appeals as against the order dated 10.08.2023 in W.P. Nos. 18607 of 2015 and 30193 of 2019. 1\14 For Appellant in both appeals :: Mr.M. Aswin For Respondents in both appeals :: R1 Court Mr.M.Agni Selvaraju for R2