Partly allowed

The General Manager v. The Special Deputy

Madras HC1 Mar 2016WP/32613/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Management challenged a Labour Commissioner's rejection of a dismissal approval petition. The Court held the rejection was justified due to apparent bias against a low-grade worker compared to senior officials. The writ against the rejection was dismissed, and the petitioner workman ordered reinstated with three months' time for compliance.

What did the court decide?

W.P. No.32613 dismissed; management bound to reinstate petitioner in W.P. No.10689 with all benefits within three months.

The General Manager Vs The Special Deputy — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :: 01-03-2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.32613 & 10689 OF 2014

¶6

W.P.No.32613/2014 :

¶7

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Bharathipuram, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri. ...Petitioner -vs1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.A.Sivakumar ...Respondents W.P.No.10689/2014 : A.Sivakumar ...Petitioner -vs-

¶8

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem.

¶9

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri. ...Respondents W.P.No.32613 of 2014 has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed in Approval Petition AP.No.259/2010, dated 23.05.2013, on the file of the first respondent, and quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

¶10

W.P.No.10689 of 2014 has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to employ the petitioner.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

For petitioner in W.P.No.32613/2014 & respondents 1 & 2 in W.P.No.10689/2014 : Mr.R.K.Gandhi

¶13

For respondent 1 in W.P.No.32613/2014 : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Spl.Govt.Pleader.

¶14

For respondent 2 in W.P.No.32613/2014 & petitioner in W.P.No.10689/2014 : Mr.M.Selvam,

¶15

for T.Pappiah Dharmarajan.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

W.P.No.32613/2014 :

¶18

Petitioner, who is the management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, has challenged the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, rejecting the Approval Petition filed by the management, seeking approval for order of dismissal passed against the second respondent workman.

¶19

The undisputed facts are that the second respondent workman joined duty as Helper under the petitioner mangement on 30.07.1998, after he was appointed on compassionate grounds, as his father, who was working as a driver, died in harness. During the period from 01.01.2004 to 15.09.2004, while the petitioner was working as Helper in mofussil branch of Hosur Unit of the petitioner management, it appears that there was an allegation of misappropriation of funds against several of the employees working in the said branch, including the second respondent workman, the Branch Manager, Ravindran, one Ramesh, Adhimoolam, Tamilselvan, Chandren and others and against all of them, disciplinary action was initiated. The second respondent workman submitted his explanation, denying the charges framed against him and the management not being satisfied with the explanation proceeded to conduct a domestic enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, based on which, a second show cause notice, dated 11.07.2015, was issued to the workman, for which, the workman submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the order of suspension passed against the workman was revoked and he was permitted to join duty on 21.10.2005. For the next five years, no action was initiated by the management and, all-of-a-sudden, on 23.06.2010, the workman was dismissed from service. Since the general disputes were pending conciliation, the management had to take approval of the order of dismissal from the first respndent. Therefore, the management filed an approval petition before the first respondent,which was objected to by the workman, by filing a counter statement. The first respondent framed four questions for consideration, namely,

¶20

Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whether the workman was given a reasonable opportunity ?

¶21

Whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic Enquiry Officer was made out ?

¶22

Whether the management's action was tainted with mala fides for certain extraneous reasons ?

¶23

Whether one month's wages, as required under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act were paid to the workman ?

¶24

Whether the petition for approval was submitted simultaneously when the order of dismissal was passed ?

¶25

Issue Nos.1,2,4 and 5 were decided in favour of the management. So far as the issue No.3 is concerned, the first respondent recorded the following finding :

¶26

,nj Fw;wr;rhl;ow;fhf gzpapil ePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;l xNh; g[wefh; fpisapd; nkyhsh; utPe;jpud;. unkc&;. MjpK:yk;. jkpH;r;bry;td;. re;jpud; kw;Wk; rpyh; Mfpnahh; kPJ ve;jtpj bjhlh; eltof;ifa[k; vLf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk;. Jhd; xU filepiy CHpah; (Helper) vd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; midj;J gHpfisa[k; jd; kPJ nghl;L. KGikahd cs; tprhuiz VJk; bra;ahky;. eph;thfj;jpw;F bfl;l bgah; Vw;gLk; vd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; jd;id kl;Lk; ntiyePf;fk; bra;Js;sdh; vd;Wk;. ,J jpl;lkpl;L gHpth';Fk; nehf;fj;njhL. eph;thfj;jpy; ntiy bra;a[k; cah;epiy mjpfhhpfis fhg;ghw;w ntz;Lk; vd;w nehf;fj;njhL bray;gl;oUf;fpwJ vd;w vjph;kDjhuhpd; thjj;ij kDjhuh; jug;gpy; kWf;ft[k; ,y;iy. chpa Mtz';fisj; jhf;fy; bra;J vjph;kDjhuhpd; Tw;iw bgha;g;gpf;ft[k; , y;iy/

¶27

vdnt. eph;thfk;. vjph;khDjhuhpd; kPJ vLj;j eltof;if vjph;kDjhuh; Fw;wthsp vd;W Kot [ bra;tjw;fhf kl;Lk; vLf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;. Fw;wj;jpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l gpw mYtyh;fis ghJfhf;Fk; tpjkhf nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;l bjhHpyhsh; tpnuhj nghf;F vd;Wk; Kot[ bra;fpnwd;/

¶28

From the above finding of the first respondent, it is evidently clear that the workman was a last grade worker in the said branch, as he was only a Helper. The charge was against several persons, working in the branch, namely, the Branch Manager, Ravindran, one Ramesh, Adhimoolam, Tamilselvan, Chandren and others.

¶29

The first respondent, on conducting enquiry, found that all those persons, including the Branch Manager, have been exonerated and the respondent workman, who was a last grade worker, has been penalised and, definitely, this action is tainted with mala fides. Before this Court, the management is not able to dislodge this factual finding of the first respondent. In any event, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not act as an appellate authority over the finding of fact recorded by the first respodnent. There is no explanation given by the management as to why all those senior officials of the management were exonerated. According to the learned counsel for the respondent workman, the said officials have also been given promotion. If that be so, it further strengthens the case of the workman. In the light of the above, the order passed by the first respondent, rejecting grant of approval, was perfectly justified.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

With regard to issue No.5, though the first respondent agreed with the management, stating that simultaneously the application was filed, the first respondent failed to note that the second show cause notice was issued on 11.07.2005 and after the workman gave his further explanation, he was permitted to join duty on 21.10.2005. Thereafter, for nearly five years, the management did not taken any action, but, chose to pass the order of dismissal only on 23.06.2010. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the first respondent in a proper perspective, which also should have been held in favour of the workman.

¶32

For all the above reasons, no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, this Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of this Writ Petition, the management is bound to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits, for which, the management is granted three months' time from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶33

W.P.No.10689/2014 : 7. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.32613 of 2014, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶34

dixit Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶35

1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem. 3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri.

¶36

- 1 cc to T.Pappiah Dharmarajan, Advocate Sr 13137 KR/15/3/16

¶37

W.P.Nos.32613 & 10689 OF 2014

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The General Manager v. The Special Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. The Special Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Parthiban Vs Employees State Insurance

Yamuna Vs S.Mathivanan

The Management of Vs Special Deputy Commissioner

M/S.Sri Lakshmi Narasimhar Vs the Commissioner

Viswakamal Residents Welfare Vs a.Karthik IAS

V.Sridharan Vs N.Ravichandran