V.Mani vs The management

WP No. 27498 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
WP No. 27498 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos.26714 & 26727 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011606582022}
V.Mani
S/o. Velusamy, 10/295, Kurangumudi Estate,
Valparai, Coimbatore 642 127
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The management
M/s. The PuthuThottam Estate (1943) Limited,
Kurangumudi Estate, Valparai,
Coimbatore 642 127
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records
pursuant to the award dated 07.06.2022 made in I.D. No. 119/2019 on the file of
the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.UdhayaSuriyan
For Respondent(s): Dr.A.Thiyagarajan,Senior counsel
for M/s.R.ASHRAF KHAN

__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the entire records pursuant to
the Award dated 07.06.2022 made in I.D. No. 119/2019 on the file of the
Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore and to quash the same. By the impugned
Award, the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore has dismissed the
I.D.No.119/2019 filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had challenged
the order dated 30.11.2018 of the respondent terminating the service
employment of the petitioner.
2. The impugned award dated 07.06.2022 made in I.D.No.119 of 2019
passed by the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore. The operative portion of
the impugned award dated 07.06.2022 made in I.D.No.119 of 2019 passed by
the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, reads is as under:
"11. In the result, the petition is dismissed as follows:
1. The punishment of termination from service by order
dated 30.11.2018 is held proper and commensurate to the gravity
of the charges involved.
2. The petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement of service
along with the back-wages.
3. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs."
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
3. The petitioner was employed as a Senior Assistant Field Officer by the
respondent on 01.06.2013. The employment of petitioner was terminated by the
respondent with effect on 30.11.2018 following an audit search conducted on
25.09.2014. During this inspection, the petitioner, along with a Senior Manager
named Palanisamy and a Field Conductor named Mukund Madhavan, were
found guilty of unauthorizedly storing chemicals and fertilizers in the residential
quarters of another worker.
4. Following the inspection, the petitioner and the said Palanisamy also
confessed to their involvement in the theft of the chemicals and fertilizers on
25.09.2014, by jointly submitting a statement before the respondent and
tendered their apology.
5. In this background, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner as well as other employees of the respondent. Simultaneously, an FIR
was registered in Crime No. 121 of 2014 at the Valparai Police Station on
08.10.2014. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the
Judicial Magistrate, Valparai, took cognizance of the matter in C.C. No. 44 of
2014.
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
6. Thus, the petitioner and the other employees were not only proceeded
against internally in a disciplinary proceedings for the alleged theft but were
also criminally prosecuted in C.C. No. 44 of 2014, before the Judicial
Magistrate Court at Valparai, Coimbatore District.
7. In the interregnum, the petitioner took employment with Bombay
Burmah Trading Corporation Limited tendered his resignation on 5th October
2015, stating as follows:-
"From
V.Mani
Field Officer,
Chunambil Div.
To
The General Manager,
Singampatty Group
Through: Manager, Assistant, Manager.
Dear Sir,
I unable to continue my service in your prestiges company.
I request you to accept my resignation letter.
Thanking You,
Yours faithfully,
(Sd/- V.Mani)
Date: 05/10/2015"
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
8. Before the Labour Court, both the petitioner and the respondent
Management tendered evidence and marked several documents. The petitioner
marked approximately 18 Exhibits, which included the order dated 23.11.2021,
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Valparai, in C.C. No. 44 of 2014, acquitting
the petitioner of the charges in the said criminal case.
9. The primary challenge to the Impugned Award of the Labour Court
dated 07.06.2022 in I.D. No. 119 of 2019 is that the Labour Court failed to note
that the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner contrary
to Rule 23(2) of the Model Standing Orders. It is submitted that the procedure
prescribed under Rule 23(2) is as follows:
"(ii) If a staff is alleged to have committed an act of
misconduct under Standing Order 21, the employer may conduct an
enquiry by issuing a show-cause notice calling on the staff to submit
a written explanation within 5 days from the time such explanation
is demanded, and if such written explanation is unsatisfactory or if
the staff fails to submit a written explanation and further
disciplinary action is warranted, issue a charge-sheet not later than
two months after the receipt of explanation giving the staff an
opportunity to explain the charges made against him in proceedings
which shall be commenced as soon as possible thereafter, by the
employer or such other person as may be authorized or appointed
by the employer for the purpose, but not later than three months or
earlier than 10 days after issue of charge sheet."
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
10. It is, therefore, submitted that the Charge Memo dated 09.04.2014
against the petitioner which culminated in the Termination Order dated
30.11.2018 of the respondent was without jurisdiction. Consequently, it is
submitted that the Labour Court ought to have ordered the reinstatement of the
petitioner along with full back wages and attendant benefits.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the
petitioner had admitted guilt along with the co-accused, Palanisamy, on
25.09.2014, and was subsequently proceeded against both departmentally and
criminally. It was further submitted that the petitioner had taken up employment
with Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited and later resigned from the
company. Consequently, learned senior counsel urged that the impugned award
of the Labour Court dismissing I.D. No. 119 of 2019 does not suffer from any
illegality or irregularity in light of the petitioner's confession, and thus, does not
merit any interference.
12. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned award
of the Labour Court, in my view, does not suffer from any material irregularity
in the decision-making process or in the decision arrived at while dismissing
I.D. No. 119 of 2019, particularly in light of the confession made by the
petitioner on 25.09.2014 along with the said Palanisamy.
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
13. Merely because the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in C.C.
No. 44 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Valparai, by an order dated
23.11.2021, ipso facto, does not, mean that the petitioner was wrongly
terminated from service by the respondent on 30.11.2018.
14. The yardstick in a Disciplinary Proceedings against a delinquent
employee is different from the yardstick to be followed by a Criminal Court for
criminal offences. Before convicting an accused in a criminal proceeding, guilt
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Whereas in a domestic enquiry, the
finding is rendered on a preponderance of probabilities.
15. Considering the fact that the petitioner admitted his guilt on
25.09.2014 and attempted to retract it only during the pendency of the
Disciplinary Proceedings indicates that the petitioner's attempt to resile from the
confession given on 25.09.2014 is nothing but an afterthought. Management
cannot be compelled to retain an employee who has lost its confidence,
particularly when the employee is involved in theft and has admitted to the
same. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned award of the Labour Court fails.
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
16. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed on the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RNA
To
The Additional Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )

WP No. 27498 of 2022
C.SARAVANAN, J.
RNA
WP No. 27498 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos.26714 & 26727 of 2022
29-10-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )