Madras High Court Affirms Labour Court’s Orders From 1996 for Royal Enfield Employee 

Must Read

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable...

Follow us

A Royal Enfield employee suffered injuries in a fire the factory suffered in 1975. He was later dismissed by his employers owing to unauthorized absenteeism from work for brief periods for a consecutive 7 years. The employee moved to Labour Court which decided in his favour and directed the Employers to award him Rs 2 Lakh. The employers filed a Writ Petition in Madras HC to quash the order of the Labour Court.  The case was heard and decided upon by Chief Justice A.P. Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy. 

Facts of the Case

Sivan joined as a Junior Grade Operator on completion of his training at Royal Enfield Motors. He sustained injuries in a fire the factory suffered in 1975. He was absent from work for 50-120 days every year since 1985-91. violation of clause 12(c) of the certified Standing Orders of the second Respondent which, if proved, would constitute misconduct within the meaning of clause 15(viii) of the Standing Orders. The employers dismissed him from the service. The appellant moved to the Labour Court against his dismissal. The Labour Court gave the verdict in the appellant’s favour and further directed the employers to award the appellant a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The employers in the present case have filed a Writ Petition to quash the decree passed by the Labour Court.

Arguments before the Court

The counsel for the Appellant argued that the single judge from the Labour Court should not have examined the award as if it were a court of appeal. The counsel cited apropos paragraphs of Indian Overseas Bank v. IOB Staff Canteen Workers Union (2000) 4 SCC 245 and Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178. In the first case, it was maintained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘A tribunal Judge cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the passing of any Award’. In the second case, it was said that: 

 “In a departmental proceeding, if an allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct”

The fact that willful absenteeism was not proved in this case and the Labour Court still went on to give a decree and a direction to pay a two- lakh rupee sum. Thus, the Order of the Labour Court ought to be set aside and the award be restored. 

The counsel for Mr S. Sivan submitted that the Court would be justified in setting aside the perverse order, however, the Court must consider the enquiry officer and medical consultant’s report. It was only after considering these, that Mr S. Sivan was dismissed by the Appellants.

The learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court arrived at a conclusion, which had no basis in evidence, and that the Labour Court proceeded to conclude that his absenteeism in the year 1988 to 1991 was justifiable merely because the Appellant had sustained injuries during the fire accident in 1975. Therefore, he submitted that the award of the Labour Court is clearly perverse and that the order of the learned single Judge was, therefore, justifiable. 

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the principal issue here was whether the Award of the Labour Court warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

The Court further observed that the award of the Labour Court can be interfered with if it were perverse. 

Upon perusal of the enquiry report, the Court noted that the charge pertained to unauthorized and not wilful absenteeism. The Appellant did not provide any evidence to prove that his absence from work between 1988 and 1991. 

The Court further noted that the award of the Labour Court, in this case, satisfied the test of perversity and made out a case for interference by the writ court. 

The Court cited apropos paragraphs of Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited v. S.Viswanathan, (2005) 3 SCC 193 in this regard. 

The Court observed that the ends of justice warranted the payment of compensation to Mr Sivan. However, given that he did not actually work during this period, it would not be justifiable to pay full wages for such period as compensation. 

Court’s Orders

The Court affirmed the order of the Labour Court with a minor modification. 

It directed the employers of Mr S. Sivan to pay him Rs 2.5 lakhs. This is 50% amount of his salary for the years of 1996 to 2005, a total of nine years until his retirement, that he would have been working if he had been reinstated into his services.

Click here to view the Judgement.


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 HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur. The case...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order held that Mr Arora had...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the charge sheet (dated...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to quash and set aside an...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order on 17th November 2020 in...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable Justice Gopinath. P heard the...

AP High Court: If an Auction Is Conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the Property Ceases to be Property of the State

A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action...

Madras HC Rules in Favour of the Authorities in FMGE Examination, Finds Writ Petitions Against the Exam Void of Merit

Three aspirants of Foreign Medical Examinations moved to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They...

Hong Kong High Court Rules for Independent Mechanisms To Be Set up To Deal With Complaints Against Police Officers

The present suit was brought by a journalist association because of the police brutality that the protestors faced in the protests against the China...

Madras High Court Maintains That Government Policy Is To Prioritize Own State’s Candidates and Sets Aside Nativity Certificate Rejection Order

Varsha Totagi, a NEET aspirant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. She had been denied Nativity Certificate without which...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -