Plea by acquitted man for job reinstatement dismissed

Justice S M Subramaniam made this observation while dismissing a plea moved by an employee of Tamil Nadu Zari Limited seeking reinstatement with all attendant benefits by quashing his termination order issued on February 3, 2014.

As per the case, K Ramesh was suspended on 23 July 2012 for the theft of zari. Thereafter, following a domestic enquiry he was suspended and thereafter terminated from service on February 3, 2014. Even the conciliation proceedings in 2015 had failed and no industrial dispute challenging his dismissal was raised. Now, following his acquittal regards zari theft, he moved the present plea seeking to direct Tamil Nadu Zari Limited to reinstate him with attendant benefits.

However, Justice Subramaniam on pointing out to the failure of the petitioner in moving an industrial dispute immediately after conciliation failed, said, “Pendency of the criminal case cannot be a bar for an employee to approach the Labour Court to challenge the order of termination. Even in case of acquittal, the same would not be a bar for the employer to continue the disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof required for a criminal case is strict in nature. However, no such strict proof is required in the disciplinary proceedings.”

Also, holding that preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, Justice Subramaniam said, “This being the legal principles, the contention of the writ petitioner that he waited for the final disposal of the criminal case, is mis-conceived and cannot be accepted.”

“Merely by submitting application after application or receiving subsequent reply, would not provide a fresh cause of action in respect of the original punishment imposed during 2014. The writ petitioner cannot restore the cause of action, which arose on 03.02.2014, when the order of termination was issued,” Justice Subramaniam held.

He also added that the order of termination, now challenged, without raising an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be entertained at all.