The Management, Balu Transport Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1179513
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnFeb-08-2016
Case NumberW.P(MD)No. 2908 of 2008 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2008
JudgeA. Selvam
AppellantThe Management, Balu Transport
RespondentThe Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another
Excerpt:
(writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the award in i.d.no.79/1994 dated 11.12.2007 and quash the same.) 1. this writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ so as to call for records relating to the order passed in i.d.no.79 of 1994 dated 11.12.2007 by the first respondent and quash the same. 2. it is averred in the petition that the second respondent by name sundaram has served as a driver in the transport company of the petitioner and from 17.09.1993 he failed to report his duty and subsequently various notices have been issued and finally an advocate has been appointed as enquiry officer and he has given so many enquiry notices thereby calling upon the second respondent to make his appearance for enquiry. but the second respondent has not turned up and ultimately the enquiry officer has filed his report and thereafter a compromise has been effected in the presence of labour officer and the labour officer has filed his report and subsequently the second respondent has filed i.d.no.79 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent, wherein it has been specifically prayed to reinstate him in service with backwages. the first respondent without considering the contentions putforth on the side of the petitioner has erroneously allowed the petition by way of passing the impugned order and in order to quash the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has not made his appearance. under the said circumstances the present writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the contentions putforth on the side of the writ petitioner. 4. the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has sparingly contended that the second respondent has served as a driver of the petitioner and from 17.09.1993 he failed to report his duty and thereafter necessary notices have been issued and even after receipt of the same, he failed to make his appearance nor given any proper reply and subsequently a charge memo has been issued and even after receipt of the same, he has not given any reply and consequently an enquiry officer has been appointed and the enquiry officer has sent several notices to the second respondent and even after receipt of the same, he failed to make his appearance and thereafter the matter has been referred to labour officer, wherein no compromise has been effected and by way of suppressing everything the second respondent has filed i.d.no.79 of 1994 for the reliefs sought therein and the first respondent without considering the specific contentions putforth on the side of the management has erroneously allowed the same by way of passing the impugned order and therefore the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed. 5. in fact this court has perused the entire steps taken on the side of the petitioner. it is seen from the records that from 17.09.1993, the petitioner has failed to report his duty and after taking proper steps a charge memo has been issued and even after receipt of the same the second respondent has not given proper reply and consequently an enquiry officer has been appointed. the enquiry officer has sent several notices to the second respondent and thereby called upon him to make his appearance for enquiry. but he has not turned up and ultimately the enquiry officer has given his report. after passing such report, the matter has been referred to labour officer and he has given a report stating that no compromise has been effected in between the management and second respondent and thereafter the second respondent has filed i.d.no.79 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent. 6. in fact this court has perused the impugned order passed by the first respondent wherein it has been specifically stated that no charge memo has been issued to the second respondent and no enquiry has been conducted on the part of the management. 7. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the first respondent without considering the voluminous documents filed on the side of the petitioner, has erroneously passed the impugned order. 8. as marshalled earlier, since the second respondent has failed to report his duty from 17.09.1993, the petitioner has taken various steps, but he failed to make his appearance which culminated issuance of charge memo. after issuing charge memo, an advocate has been appointed as enquiry officer and even the enquiry officer has given several notices to the second respondent and thereby directed him to make his appearance for enquiry and he failed to appear and subsequently enquiry officer has passed his order. but the first respondent without considering the various steps taken by the petitioner/management and also without looking into the proper enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer has simply found that no charge memo has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted. the reason given by the first respondent is totally against the factual aspects mentioned on the side of the petitioner/management. since the first respondent even without seeing the documents filed on the side of the petitioner/management has passed the impugned order, it is needless to say that the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed. 9. in fine, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed in i.d.no.79 of 1994 dated 11.12.2007 by the first respondent is quashed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Judgment:

(Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the award in I.D.No.79/1994 dated 11.12.2007 and quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ so as to call for records relating to the order passed in I.D.No.79 of 1994 dated 11.12.2007 by the first respondent and quash the same.

2. It is averred in the petition that the second respondent by name Sundaram has served as a driver in the transport company of the petitioner and from 17.09.1993 he failed to report his duty and subsequently various notices have been issued and finally an Advocate has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and he has given so many enquiry notices thereby calling upon the second respondent to make his appearance for enquiry. But the second respondent has not turned up and ultimately the Enquiry Officer has filed his report and thereafter a compromise has been effected in the presence of Labour Officer and the Labour officer has filed his report and subsequently the second respondent has filed I.D.No.79 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent, wherein it has been specifically prayed to reinstate him in service with backwages. The first respondent without considering the contentions putforth on the side of the petitioner has erroneously allowed the petition by way of passing the impugned order and in order to quash the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has not made his appearance. Under the said circumstances the present writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the contentions putforth on the side of the writ petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has sparingly contended that the second respondent has served as a driver of the petitioner and from 17.09.1993 he failed to report his duty and thereafter necessary notices have been issued and even after receipt of the same, he failed to make his appearance nor given any proper reply and subsequently a charge memo has been issued and even after receipt of the same, he has not given any reply and consequently an Enquiry Officer has been appointed and the Enquiry Officer has sent several notices to the second respondent and even after receipt of the same, he failed to make his appearance and thereafter the matter has been referred to Labour Officer, wherein no compromise has been effected and by way of suppressing everything the second respondent has filed I.D.No.79 of 1994 for the reliefs sought therein and the first respondent without considering the specific contentions putforth on the side of the management has erroneously allowed the same by way of passing the impugned order and therefore the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed.

5. In fact this Court has perused the entire steps taken on the side of the petitioner. It is seen from the records that from 17.09.1993, the petitioner has failed to report his duty and after taking proper steps a charge memo has been issued and even after receipt of the same the second respondent has not given proper reply and consequently an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. The Enquiry Officer has sent several notices to the second respondent and thereby called upon him to make his appearance for enquiry. But he has not turned up and ultimately the Enquiry Officer has given his report. After passing such report, the matter has been referred to Labour Officer and he has given a report stating that no compromise has been effected in between the management and second respondent and thereafter the second respondent has filed I.D.No.79 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent.

6. In fact this Court has perused the impugned order passed by the first respondent wherein it has been specifically stated that no charge memo has been issued to the second respondent and no enquiry has been conducted on the part of the management.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the first respondent without considering the voluminous documents filed on the side of the petitioner, has erroneously passed the impugned order.

8. As marshalled earlier, since the second respondent has failed to report his duty from 17.09.1993, the petitioner has taken various steps, but he failed to make his appearance which culminated issuance of charge memo. After issuing charge memo, an Advocate has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and even the Enquiry Officer has given several notices to the second respondent and thereby directed him to make his appearance for enquiry and he failed to appear and subsequently Enquiry Officer has passed his order. But the first respondent without considering the various steps taken by the petitioner/management and also without looking into the proper enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer has simply found that no charge memo has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted. The reason given by the first respondent is totally against the factual aspects mentioned on the side of the petitioner/management. Since the first respondent even without seeing the documents filed on the side of the petitioner/management has passed the impugned order, it is needless to say that the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed.

9. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed in I.D.No.79 of 1994 dated 11.12.2007 by the first respondent is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.