At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA
For the Petitioner: S. Bharathy Kannan, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified calling for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D. No.23 of 2010 dated 23.09.2014 quash the same insofar as it relates to the portion of award viz. the punishment of stoppage of increment of the petitioner for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect and denial of backwages alone and pass any such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by D.Palaniappan challenging the correctness of the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.23 of 2010 dated 23.09.2014, in and by which, the Labour Court modified the punishment of dismissal from service and replaced with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years and again the Labour Court has denied the backwages to the petitioner. Yet, the petitioner mainly challenged the portion of the award denying the backwages along with the order of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.
2. The petitioner was charged with the allegation that he refused to work in the allotted place and on the other hand, the petitioner and other labourers wanted to do work on their own willingness. The enquiry officer, after holding fair and proper enquiry, found that the petitioner was guilty and the charges were proved as grave and serious. When the misconduct committed by the petitioner was grave, the disciplinary authority, also taking into account the past record, which are also bad, finally imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The learned Labour Court agreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer under domestic enquiry, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved on the acceptable evidence. The relevant portion of the order of the Labour Court reads as follows:-
3. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the punishment of stoppage of increment and denial of backwages cannot stand to legal scrutiny is absolutely unfounded. For, a reading of the reasoned findings given by the Labour Court, which are extracted above, is also unimpeachable. That apart, the respondent has not challenged the fairness of the enquiry. Therefore, in my considered view, the Labour Court, while modifying the punishment of dismissal from service as disproportionate to the proved charges before the domestic enquiry, only denied the back
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
wages and imposed the stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.