Madras HC Upholds the Order of Labour Court in a Common Order for Two Writ Petitions Under Article 226

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The High Court delivered a common order for two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari and to quash the impugned orders of the Labour Court. The High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court in the judgment delivered on August 12th, 2020.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli & Ors, respondent no. 2 was a conductor in the corporation. He did a complaint against the branch manager for receiving a bribe. The Police registered a case against the manager but the corporation insisted the 2nd respondent to withdraw the complaint to which he refused. In vengeance, the petitioner corporation framed the charge of misappropriation of daily collection amount on the respondent. An enquiry was set up by the Corporation against the respondent for the charge of misappropriation against which a writ was filed in the High Court. The High Court ordered a stay on the enquiry. 

Even After this, the respondent lost his job due to the termination. Aggrieved by the improper allotment of work to the conductors and drivers, respondent no. 2 filed an industrial dispute in the labour court of Tirunelveli. The Labour Court ordered in favour of the respondent and held the enquiry to be bad and violative of natural justice. Challenging the interim award, the corporation filed the first petition which was pending in the High Court. The Labour Court further issued an order through which the order of termination of the respondent from the job was set aside and ordered the reinstatement of him with back wage and all consequential benefits. Against this order, the corporation filed the second petition. 

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner/Corporation argued that:-

  1. The respondent made a false complaint to the police about the receipt of a bribe by the branch manager.
  2. The 2nd respondent didn’t remit the daily collection amount to the corporation.
  3. That despite the opportunity given, the 2nd respondent did not submit an explanation to the charges.
  4. That even after serving copies of documents and after affording an opportunity of cross-examining four Management side witnesses, the charges framed against the 2nd respondent got proved.
  5. That the Labour Court failed to note that the delinquent himself has endorsed in writing that the domestic enquiry was being conducted by giving full opportunity to him and he did not object to the same.

Arguments of the Respondent

  1. That the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and thus, held that the dismissal order passed based on the outcome of such enquiry was also perverse and accordingly set aside the order of dismissal.
  2. That the whole duration of enquiry was violative of principles of natural justice due to non-providing of opportunity to the 2nd respondent to submit his explanation to the charges and also for not providing an opportunity to examine further witnesses to prove his case.

Court’s Observation

Honourable Justice J. Nisha Banu completely agreed with the following observations of the Labour Court and didn’t find any “infirmity to interfere”:-

  1. The Labour Court held that it is not explained by the petitioner that after the dismissal of the writ petition of the 2nd respondent challenging charge memo, why they resorted to suspension without seeking an explanation from the 2nd respondent to the charges framed against him.
  2. The Labour Court held that the enquiry was conducted in violative of principles of natural justice due to non-providing of opportunity to the 2nd respondent to submit his explanation to the charges and also for not providing an opportunity to examine further witnesses to prove his case.
  3. That though the respondent informed the enquiry officer that he has further witness to be examined, the enquiry officer did not accept the same and concluded the enquiry.

Court’s Order

The High Court dismissed both the petitions with no costs.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -