IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No.28428 of 2004

The Management of

Western India plywood Ltd

261 Sydenhams Road,

Chennai 112

Rep by its Managing Director. …Petitioner

Versus

1. The presiding Officer,

Principal Labour Court,

Chennai

2. P.Aboobecker,

Flat No.3114, Block No.29, III Floor,

Jeevan Bhima Nagar,

Anna Nagar West Extention,

Chennai -101. …Respondent

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

I, P.Aboobecker, aged 60 years, S/o.Marikkar, Haji Muslim, residing at Flat

No.3114, Block No.29, III Floor, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Nagar West
Extension, Chennai -101 do here solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. The writ of Certiarari filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed in
I.DNo.109 of 1996 dated 21.04.2004 is not sustainable either in law or on facts.

2. The 2nd respondent was suspended on 20.04.1993 later dismissed on

05.09.1995. Against the order of dismissal this respondent filed I.D.No.109/1996
in the Labour Court. The Labour Court in its order dated 24.01.2004 set aside the
order of termination and ordered this respondent is entitle Re instatement only. but
denied the back wages. As against the denial of back wages this respondent filed
W.P.No.19734/2004 pending before this Hon’ble Court. The above said writ
petition is may be treated as part and parcel of this counter.
 -2-

3. This respondent states that the Manager Sreedharan alone committed

misappropriation he had issued letter of undertaking that he alone committed
misappropriation owning responsibility not this 2nd respondent. The said
Sreedharan had not attributed any act of misappropriation or default committed by
this respondent.

5. For the amounts misappropriated Sreedharan issued cheque in favour of the

petitioner. The petitioner filed a C.C.No.5940/1993 for dishonour of cheque issued
by Sridhar , he admitted he was found guilty and he was convicted.

6. The petitioner filed a civil suit O.S.No.13578/1996 against this respondent

for the alleged amount due of Rs.1,40,485.55 paisa. The suit was contested and on
merit the said suit was dismissed on 17.11.2003 holding that this respondent had
not committed any misappropriation and no amount is due from this respondent.

7. This respondent states there is no proper domestic enquiry. The due

procedure for conducting domestic enquiry was not followed.

8. The domestic enquiry was conducted by one Manimaran legal adviser of the
petitioner’s company. The said Manimaran filed the suit O.S.13578 of 1996. On
behalf the petitioners company against this respondent. So the domestic enquiry
Officer is interested in petitioner’s company. There cannot be any free and fair
enquiry. Enquiry conducted by Manimaran is to be rejected as he is interested bias
and one-sided report rendered infavour of the petitioner. The said enquiry report
was not furnish to his respondent with documents and exhibits as per the show
cause notice alleged dated 06.08.1995.

9. This respondent offered his explanation for all the charges it was
erroneously concluded that out of 9 charges 7 charges were proved and ordered
dismissal of this respondent. The order of dismissal was challenged in
I.D.No.109/1996 before the Labour court. The 1st respondent herein passed in
order on 21.4.2004 holding the order of dismissal is excessive set aside the order of
dismissal and ordered re-instatement but denied back wages. The petitioner did not

Page No.1

NO of Corrns: Nil
 -3-

reinstate this respondent this petitioner filed W.P.No.19734/2004 to implement

order passed in I.D.No.109/1996 and for Back wages. I.D.No.109/1996 was filed
in the year 1996. The petitioner was not co operating for the disposal of the said
I.D. Even after the 8 years the petitioner did not come forwarded to do the case.
Hence the Labour Court had no other go except to pass an order. Quoting the delay
on 8 years an order was passed. There is no illegality in the said order

9. This respondent denies all allegations made in para 2 of the affidavit and
explanation given by this respondent has to be accepted.

CHARGE NO.1 and 2

The respondent had not misused the two cheque. He was not in
charge of depositing the cheques drawn if favour in the company. Limra Industris
did not issue any cheque but it paid the cash for bill No.23458 cash to the manager
R.Sridaran . In his letter dated 07.03.1995. So the said charge is false and it is not
proved.

Charge No.4:

The petitioner company had sold 400 Sheets of hard Board of M/S
Shadab Traders by giving payment under bill No.24045 dated 25.09.1992 out of
this 400 sheets shadab Traders sold 180 sheets to M/s Elumalai Chetty under
Shadab Traders cash bill No.14 dated 12.10.1990. This respondent has nothing to
do with the said transaction. The said charge is not proved. This respondent denies
the allegation it is not firm of this respondent or his daughter. No document is
produced by the petitioner to establish that this respondent is in any way connected
with the said traders.

Charge No.5:

This respondent has nothing to do with the cheque transaction.

But the account department dealt with the said cheque. The said cheques was not
entrusted with the respondent. And he not presented the said cheque on
04.02.1993. This bill was prepared by this respondent and it was sent to the
accounts department and there after this respondent has nothing to do with bill and
he had not presented the bill on 18.01.1992.

Page No.3 : NO of Corrns: Nil

 -4-

Cheque. No.6:

This respondent denies the allegation that he is the owner of the

company shadab traders. This respondent never diverted the company customers to
shadab traders.

Charge No.8:

The cheque was issued by Sridharan and it was dishonored this respondent is
not responsible for the private transaction of Sreedharan

Charge No.9

It is private transaction between Sreedharan and Salim The matter was

settled on 27.06.1998. The charge is no longer subsisting.

10. The allegations made in Para 3 is denied. There is no proper enquiry. No

opportunity was given to this respondent to cross examine any witnesses of the
petitioner this respondent had no opportunity to produce any evidence except
marking 3 documents. The said documents alone suffist to disprove the petitioners
case.

11. The enquiry report is biased one-sided in favour of the petitioner. There is
no finding given in report of 3 documents produced by this respondent.

12. The allegations made in para4 of the affidavit is denied. This respondent
raised dispute in ID/09/2009. Challenging the domestic enquiry and finding of the
enquiry report. This respondent had not admitted any charges level against this
respondent but the 1st respondent had erroneously observed in para 13 of the order
that this respondent had admitted in the explanation. There is no such admission at
all. The 1st respondent had not considered the explanation offered by the
respondent for the charges. Without analyzing any charges and the explanation
given by the respondent. The I.D was ordered setting aside the order of termination
without awarding back wages. For the relief of back wages this respondent filed
W.P.No.19734/2004. This respondent is entitled to relief independent of order

Page No.4

No of Corrns: Nil
 -5-

passed I.D.No.109/1996. This respondent should have been absolved of all the
charges and the respondent should have been reinstated. Hence the termination
order is liable to be set aside entitling to relief of reinstatement and back wages.
Even if the order of I.D is not in accordance with law. No reasoning given for
denying the back wages.

13. The allegations made in Para6 is denied. For wrong and incorrect
observation made in I.D award this respondent should not be penalized . This
respondent denies the allegation made in para B there is no material placed by the
petitioner to prove the guilt of misappropriation . The document produced bythe
petitioner is not properly analyzed in the I.D order. In the I.D order there is no
finding that this respondent had committed misappropriation and dishonestly.

14. The allegation made in ground No C is not sustainable since the claim of
the petitioner was rejected in O.S.13578 of 1996. In the absence of proof of
misappropriation and dishonesty irrespective of the reasons given in I.D order
this respondent is entitle to be reinstated with Back wages.

15. The allegations made in ground (e) is denied. There is no fairness of enquiry
but It is biased. The enquiry Officer is legal adviser of the petitioner’s company a
party interested in the petitioner’s company. Necessarily the finding given by
interested enquiry officer should be rejected. The enquiry report is liable to be
quashed on the ground of unfairness. Whatever it may be nature of the order
passed in I.D109, ignoring the said ID order this respondent is entitle to the relief
of cancellation of termination order and the relief of reinstatement and back wages.

It is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to dismiss the
W.P.No.28428 of 2008 with the cost due to above said reasons and thus render
justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai this the day X

Of December 2011, the contents of the affidavit X
Having been read over and explained to the X Before Me
Deponent in Tamil who perfectly understood X
The same and signed his name in my presence X Advocate, Chennai

Page No.5 and

NO of Corrns: Nil
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No.28428 of 2004

The Management of

Western India plywood Ltd

…Petitioner

Versus

1. The presiding Officer,

Principal Labour Court,

And another …Respondent

INDEX

TYPED SET PEPAERS

SR.NO DATE PURTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS PAGES

1. 25.09.1992 Cash Bills for Charge -4

2. 12.10.1992 Bill to Elumalai Chare-4

3. 07.01.1993 Purchase order of Shadab Trader Charge 5

4. 06.03.1995 Letter issued by Limbra Charge 1

5. 27.06.1998 Settlement Charge-9

It is certified that the true copy of the original Documents.

Dated at Chennai this the day of January, 2012.

Counsel for 2nd Respondent

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No.28428 of 2004

The Management of

Western India plywood Ltd

…Petitioner

Versus

1. The presiding Officer,

Principal Labour Court,

And another …Respondent

INDEX

TYPED SET PAPERS

SR.NO DATE PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS PAGES

1. 25/09/1992 Bills
2. 12/10/1992 Shadab Traders
3. 09/01/1993 Bills
4. 23/01/1994 Explanation
5. 06/03/1995 Letter by Iimra

It is certified that the true copy of the original Documents.

Dated at Chennai this the day of January, 2012.

Counsel for 2nd Respondent

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No.28428 of 2004

The Management of
Western India plywood Ltd …Petitioner

Versus

1. The presiding Officer,

Principal Labour Court,

And another …Respondent

INDEX

SR.NO DATE PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS PAGES

1. Memorandum of Articles 1

2. 01/04/1993 Inspection Report 32

3. 01/04/1993 Letter given by Sridharan 34

4. 19/04/1993 Letter given by Sridharan 35

5. 28/06/1993 Letter by Sales Manager 36

It is certified that the true copy of the original Documents.

Dated at Chennai this the day of January, 2012.

Counsel for 2nd Respondent

 DISTRICT:: COIMBATORE

HIGH COURT:: MADRAS

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

C.M.A.No. of 2012

GROUNDS

M/s R.T.SUNDARI,
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
1. The respondent states for charge NO.1 proved not sustainable by the letter issued
by Limra Industries on 06.03.1995.

2. For charge NO.2 Bharagath store 07.03.1995.

3. For charge NO.4 there is no proof

4. For Charge No.5 Hack bridge had placed for which direct order to shadab
TradersFor which the respondent.

6. For charge NO.8 it is only Sreedharan issued personal Cheque and it was
dishonoured.

7. The charge no.9 was already settled by Sridharan by the virtue of the document
dated 27.06.1998.

8. The said charges only relates to current business between Sridharan and SAlim.

This respondent is not at all liable.

ADDL.TYPEDSETS

Explaination offered by the w2nd respondent on 06.03.`1995 letter issued by

Limra Industries dated 07.03.1995. Barakath Stores issued the letter on 07.1.1993
purchased order by Hack bridge to shadab Traders. On 07.09.1998 Document setting the
transaction for the charge no.9 on 24.8.1993 Letter issued by Sridharan.
1.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.03.2009
CORAM
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
Writ Petition No. 14859 of 2009
Santhi …Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Special Tahsildhar,
Land Acquation,
Miruganda nathiDam scheme,
Polur Taluk,Thiruvannamalai District. …Respondents

Writ petition has been filed under Article and of the constitution of india to issue a
writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to make a reference under section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act for a land in award No. 1 of 2004 dated 30/06/2004 in
respect of Gangavaram Village S.No. 501/1 0.96.0 and 2.37 cents belongs to the
petitioner to subordinate Judge at Arni.

For petitioner : Mr. R Margabandhu,

For Respondent :Mr. D.Geetha

Additional Govt.Pleader
ORDER
By consent of both parties , the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners has come up with the present writ petition for a Mandamus
directing the second respondent to wake reference under section 18 of the land
Acquisition Act in respect of Award.No. 1/2004 dated 30/06/2004 for acquiring the land
belonging to her in survey NO. 501/1, 0.96 hectors and 2.37 Cents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question has been assigned in
her favour under the assignment dead issued on 17/07/1991 and the said property was
acquired by the second respondent for construction of dam and award was passed in
 -2-

award No. 1 /2004 dated. 30/06/2004 . Thereafter , the petitioner issued in reference to
the dated 25/07/2004 to the second respondent for a reference to the Subordinate Judge,
Arni since the same was not considered by the second respondent , the petitioner has
approached this court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated

that since the land assigned to the petitioner was not cultivated, steps are being taken to
cancel the assignment . The compensation amount has been remitted under Revenue
deposit at the sub Treasury , Polur , due to violation of the condition of the assignment .
In view of the same the request of the petitioner for reference was not acceded to .

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned additional
Government pleader appearing for the respondents have made their submissions.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was assigned certain lands by

proceedings dated 17/07/1991. Even as per the counter affidavit of the second respondent
. though it is stated that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the assignment
order dated 17/07/1991 , the same was not canceled as on data . Thus, the petitioner , who
was assigned the land is question , is entitled for a compensation . Further more, the
petitioner’s request for enhancement of the compensation and reference for the award to
the subordinate Judge, Arni made under section 18 of the Land Acquisitation act has to
be complied with by the second respondent Admittedly the award was passed on
30/06/2004