2026:MHC:564W.P.No.8122 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders reserved on : 06.02.2026

Orders pronounced on : 11.02.2026

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

and W.M.P.No.19603 of 2021

The Management,

Meadow Rural Enterprises Private Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,

85/3, Midugarapalli village,

H.C.F Post,

Hosur – 635 110,

Krishnagiri District. .. Petitioner

Versus

T.Rajeswari .. Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to

I.D.No.102/2019, dated 11.01.2021 on the file of the Labour Court, Hosur

and quash the same.

For Petitioner: Mr.N.Devaraj,

for Ms.S.Revathi

For Respondent: Mr.R.Rajaram

1/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award, dated

11.01.2021 made in I.D.No.102 of 2019 by the Labour Court, Hosur. By

the said award, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination of the

respondent/worker, dated 11.12.2015 and directed the petitioner

management to reinstate the worker into service with 25% of back-wages.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner management is before this Court.

2. The brief factual matrix, in which the Writ Petition arises, is

that a voluntary agency namely, Mysore Resettlement and Development

Agency (known as ‘MYRADA’) works for upliftment of rural poor,

particularly, women. It had identified the women from the lowest strata

and had formed eight self-help groups who were collectively called as

‘MEADOW’. M/s.Titan Industries joined hands with the voluntary agency

in its endeavours. Initially, a piece of land was given to MEADOW and a

building was constructed. When the business developed, a company was

also incorporated under the name MEADOW Rural Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

(the petitioner), and all the 64 women, who were part of the self-help

group, became the shareholders of the company also. As per Article 25 of

the Memorandum of Association, the voluntary agency has a right to

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

appoint Directors and accordingly, one Sivarudrappa was appointed as the

Director and one K.P.Anandan, was appointed as the Chief Executive

Officer. In the year 2006, K.P.Anandan was replaced by one Suresh.

According to the respondent, when the new Chief Executive Officer,

Suresh, indulged in some malpractices including getting signatures in the

empty letter pads from the company shareholders etc., she resisted the

attempts and also brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities, on

account of which, the respondent was victimized.

3. According to the petitioner, on 18.07.2014, on behalf of all the

workers of MEADOW, a complaint was given to the Director. In the

complaint, it was stated that when 450 women were working in the

organization for the past three years, without reporting to any unit, the

respondent, Rajeswari, who is sitting idle in the Accounts Department, was

raising hue and cry as if nothing is correct and was questioning every

decision that was taken. She was using unparliamentary words on every

occasion. The words were specifically mentioned in the complaint. If any

other worker confronted her, she used to call the husband of the worker

and make unscrupulous allegations of extra marital affairs against them.

She is bringing in politicians inside the company and everyday, her

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

atrocity was increasing. Therefore, it was prayed to take an action against

her.

4. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that three workers

namely, Pushpavathi, Naveena and Prabha gave complaints against the

respondent. The complaints state that the respondent being a co-worker,

was indulging in creating unnecessary problems for the past two years.

The petitioner had been advising her to correct herself, but, she has not

changed. She was indulging in activities adverse to the company,

management and the other poor women workers. She was writing letters

to outsiders by making false allegations against the company and creating

problems in working of the company. If directed to do any work, she

refused. She never used to report before the management authorities

whenever called. Thus, she was indulging in unjustifiable, illegal acts.

She was also indulging in bad actions against poor women workers and

therefore, action is to be taken against her.

5. Under the said circumstances, a show-cause notice, dated

28.07.2014 was issued to her stating that the complaints have been

received and several allegations had been made against the worker. Upon

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

consideration thereof, the action was detrimental to the factory and the

management. Therefore, it called for an explanation within 48 hours from

the date of receipt of the memorandum, failing which, a disciplinary action

would be initiated as per the Standing Order No.19. Upon receipt of the

show-cause notice, the worker sent a reply on 02.08.2014. The reply states

that she was working with the MEADOW for the past 17 years. She is

also the shareholder for the past 15 years. There was no complaint against

her all this time. Suddenly, a complaint was made against her and she was

surprised. She sought for particulars of the persons who complained

against her and also wanted to know as to what had been the complaint

given against her. She submitted that if those were furnished to her, it

would enable her to give due reply thereof. Thereafter, on 09.08.2014, an

order was passed stating that the petitioner management was in receipt of

the explanation, dated 06.08.2014 and they were not satisfied with the

explanation. Considering the nature of allegations made, the worker would

be placed under suspension from 11.08.2014. Thereafter, it seems that for

more than one year, the disciplinary proceedings did not commence.

6. On 10.09.2014, a charge memorandum was issued to her. The

first portion of the charge memorandum states that the worker was

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

indulging in anti-management activities for the past two years and several

complaints have been received against her from the other workmen and a

memo had been given. Therefore, it is decided to initiate disciplinary

proceedings and already, a show-cause notice, dated 28.07.2014 was

issued and the respondent was also suspended from 11.08.2014. Till date,

no explanation has been given by the respondent. Therefore, as per the

Standing Orders of the company, disciplinary action was initiated. The

Standing Order Nos.19(1), 9, 10, 20, 25, 28, 30, 32, 36, 41, 53 and 54 were

quoted and it was further stated that her action amounted to misconduct

under the said Standing Orders and requested her to submit her explanation

within three working days.

7. The respondent submitted her explanation on 16.09.2015. She

had categorically stated that she was placed under suspension without any

justification and the proceedings are by way of victimization. She did not

violate any of the Standing Orders. Merely because she had approached

the High Court with reference to the grievance of the workmen, she was

targeted. When salary hike had been stopped, she demanded the reasons in

writing. Under the said circumstances, the show-cause notice was issued.

Till the date, the allegations/complaints that were made against her were

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

not furnished to her. Under the said circumstances, she presumes that

those are only false complaints and thus submitted her explanation.

8. Thereafter, the order, dated 22.09.2015 was passed appointing

a Domestic Enquiry Officer. Before the Domestic Enquiry Officer, upon

being questioned, the worker denied the charges. First, one Jyothi, an

Account Assistant was examined as the witness. She spoke about the fact

that the respondent did not go and join duty in the allocated unit and was

sitting at the Accounts unit along with yet another worker. When the

another worker had ultimately gone to some other unit, the respondent

alone persisted and was doing whatever work she could do in the said unit.

This apart, she has started indulging in activities detrimental to the

management and the company and therefore, it was decided to initiate

disciplinary proceedings against her. The witness further spoke about the

issue of memo, suspension and thereafter, issuing the charge

memorandum. Through her, the complaints were marked as Ex.M-1 to

Ex.M-4. Thereafter, the show-cause notice and the further proceedings

were marked as Ex.M-5 to Ex.M-11.

9. After that, the three employees, who gave identical

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

complaints, namely, Pushpavathi, Naveena and Prabha, were examined

and they were also cross-examined by the worker.

10. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer returned the finding that the

charges were proved, based on which, the worker was terminated from

service. Aggrieved thereby, the worker raised a dispute. The conciliation

not yielding any settlement, she filed a Claim Petition under Section 2-

A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was taken on file as

I.D.No.108 of 2016. In the Claim Petition, the specific prayer of the

respondent was to hold the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse and

that there was no evidence to prove the charges and to set aside the

termination order, dated 11.12.2014 and reinstate the respondent into

service with full back-wages, continuity of service and the other attendant

benefits.

11. The Claim Petition was resisted by the petitioner-

management by filing a counter. Before the Labour Court, no oral

evidence was let in by both the sides and the documents were marked by

way of consent as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32. The Labour Court, thereafter,

considered the case of the parties. It found that the details of the alleged

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

misconduct were never put to the respondent and are vague. It further

found that there is no evidence to prove the allegations against the

respondent. The three workers who were the witnesses were cross-

examined and none of the charges stood proved. Accordingly, it set aside

the order of termination, dated 11.12.2015, however, ordered reinstatement

with continuity of service with only 25% of the back-wages. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner management is before this Court.

12. Mr.N.Devaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner

management would submit that the Labour Court has found that none of

the employees, who have signed the Ex.M-1, was examined. The same is

incorrect as the three employees who had given the individual complaints,

were also signatories for the first complaint. Therefore, the finding of the

Labour Court is perverse. When the voluntary agency, in collaboration

with leading industry, is trying to give life to the poor and downtrodden

workmen by bringing in a corporate setup for the work, the respondent

never realized the same and indulged in speaking unparliamentary words

about every decision and the words were mentioned in the first complaint.

The charge is serious in nature.

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

13. This apart, she has been making complaints about the

company involving the local M.L.A and thus, tried to bring in politicians

inside the company and created problem for the management. She gave

criminal complaint against the Chief Executive Officer and tried to restrain

him from performing his work, thereby pressurizing him, to assert her

supremacy. The co-employees, who are all women, who have been

working sincerely for the upliftment of the company, so that the

shareholders could get the profit, are all disturbed and annoyed by the

attitude of the respondent. When each and everyday, at each and every

occasion, the attitude, the words spoken and the deeds done are against the

co-workers against the company and against the management, the

company is justified in contending that it has lost confidence on the

respondent. Even if there is any flaw in the enquiry, reinstatement is

totally out of the question as day in and day out the respondent has been

indulging in mudslinging against the management and also against co-

workers. She has proven to be incorrigible. Therefore, the learned

Counsel would submit that the award of the Labour Court is to be

interfered with. The learned Counsel also took this Court in detail as to the

nature of the complaints made, the evidence let in in the Domestic

Enquiry, the cross-examination made by the worker and the other

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

documents, including the complaints she has allegedly preferred before the

Police and the admission that she has approached the local M.L.A.

14. Per contra, Mr.R.Rajaram, learned Counsel would submit

that in this case no specific charge has been levelled. Only vague

allegations were made, for which, there is no proof. Only because of the

same, the worker did not insist upon the validity of the fairness of the

procedure and straightaway prayed about the prima facie evidence in

respect of the charges. In exercise of the powers under Section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court had found that there is

absolutely no proof in respect of the so-called allegations and therefore,

ordered reinstatement with 25% back-wages. The learned Counsel would

submit that this is not a fit case where it can be held that the management

has lost confidence of the respondent and the compensation be ordered.

This is a case where the respondent has been acting in the best interests of

the other women workers and when she is questioning about the illegal

activities of the management. She was targeted and victimized. The

learned Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Bombay High

Court in Chowgule and Co. Vs. Chowgule Employees Union

1

.

12007-III-L.L.J.103

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

15. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side

and perused the material records of the case.

16. The background facts were adverted supra. It can be seen

that originally, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent by

mentioning about the complaints being received against her. Admittedly,

neither the complaints were enclosed with the show-cause notice nor the

allegations were extracted in the show-cause notice. Immediately, the

worker had given a reply stating that if the allegations are put across to her,

she would come up with the reply. The petitioner/management neither

denies the claim of the worker and asserts that already copies of the

complaints given nor furnishes the copies of the complaints. However, it

holds that the explanation is not acceptable and places the respondent

under suspension. Thus, the initiation of the proceedings i.e., the show-

cause notice on 28.07.2014, the reply of the worker given on 02.08.2014

and the suspension order, dated 09.08.2014 smack vindictive attitude of

the petitioner/management.

17. This apart, when the complaints were already received and

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

when that is only the allegation, there was no justification for the

management to have kept quiet from the month of August, 2014 till the

month of September, 2015 after placing the worker under suspension. Be

that as it may, the charge memorandum merely states that already, the

allegations were made, show-cause notice was given, which all amount to

misconduct under various provisions of the Standing Order No.19 and

seeks for explanation. Thus, it can be seen that even the charge

memorandum did not categorically state as to which of those allegations

that are mentioned in the complaint that would amount to misconduct and

that is being considered by the management. Even with reference to the

said explanation, the reply of the worker is that she was never put across as

to what are the allegations against her. The management thereafter

proceeds to appoint a Domestic Enquiry Officer. Before the Domestic

Enquiry Officer, the first witness, Jyothi, spoke about the worker on her

own remaining in a particular department and doing the works as she likes.

18. In this case, if the charge against the worker is

insubordination in not going to a particular unit and working, absolutely,

nothing is on record as to any order was served on her to go and work in a

particular department and that she defied the same. Such kind of

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

categorical allegations were never put in the enquiry for her to come up

with an explanation. The said Jyothi, thereafter only, spoke about the

initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the further proceedings and

nothing on the merits of the other charges. The other three employees,

though said to have given complaints on various dates, incidentally, gave

verbatim complaints. From the beginning to end, not even a word

changes. When they were examined, they did not specifically mention

about the bad words spoken, though they generally said that they saw the

worker standing at the gate and uttering the words. Neither they specified

the incidents and when they were specifically questioned as to whether the

worker had spoken ill about them, the answered in the negative.

19. Leaving the cross-examination apart, even taking their

evidence in chief, they had only stated that their complaints can be taken as

their statements. Even as per their statements, the first allegation that is

made is that for the past two years, the worker has been indulging in

several problems not heeding to the advice of the management and the co-

workers. The second allegation is that she has been making unscrupulous

and false allegations against the company detrimental to the interests of the

management and the other workers. Absolutely, no particulars whatsoever

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

have been given or put across to the worker during the enquiry. The third

allegation is that whenever called by the management, the worker did not

report. There also, no details were spoken by the three witnesses. Thus,

the chief-examination of all the four witnesses is even taken as true, did

not make any specific and clear-cut allegations of any misconduct against

the respondent. Therefore, no exception whatsoever can be taken to the

findings of the Labour Court that the allegations are vague in nature and

even with reference to the allegations that are made, there is absolutely no

proof.

20. When the Labour Court considers all the exhibits that were

marked before it, which included the entire documentary and oral evidence

that was adduced during the enquiry and exercised its power under Section

11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the conspectus of the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am not able to hold that it is perverse or it is in

excess of the powers conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court is conferred with the powers to

consider the nature of the charges and the nature of evidence on record and

conclude as to whether the charges, as such, amount to misconduct and if

so, whether there is adequate evidence to prove the same. When there is

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

no specific particulars with reference to each and every imputation that is

made and when the allegations are vague made and the evidence speak

only of general attitude and even more vague, no exception can be taken

for the said findings.

21. As a matter of fact, if the further documents that are pointed

out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner management are taken into

account, on every occasion, the respondent seems to have questioned about

the actions of the management and in the general interest of the worker. It

is another thing, whether they are true or not. At the same time, to an

extent, all the three workers, by their general observation, are speaking

about the fact that the worker’s language as inappropriate. Though, under

normal circumstances, it should be considered as a serious charge, one has

to take into account that this is an organisation arising from a self-help

group formed amongst the women of the lowest strata of the society and

the smell of the soil that is in the language of the worker, should be taken

into account along with the social background, in which, all the workers

arise and should not be considered divorced of their ground realities.

However, the respondent should understand that the agency is trying to

uplift them from those kinds of background into entrepreneurs and

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

therefore, cannot pursue the same language and has to correct herself. In

any event, it can be seen that considering the overall circumstances, 75%

of back-wages is not granted and that should also be borne in mind with

reference to allegations.

22. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition fails and is

accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.02.2026

Neutral Citation: yes

grs

To

The Labour Court,

Hosur.

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

W.P.No.8122 of 2021

and W.M.P.No.19603 of 2021

11.02.2026

18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis