High Court dismissed writ petition challenging Labour Authority's order. Court held Management failed to prove employee's VRS ineligibility. Shifted salary liability for absence but upheld natural justice finding.
Petitioner's writ petition dismissed with observation that respondent employee is not entitled to salary for period of unauthorised absence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.03.2020 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited Kancheepuram Region 1&2, Sekkupettai, Nadu Theru, Kancheepuram. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.V.Sivalingam 2.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) DMS Compound, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in A.P.No.110 of 2011 dated 18.04.2013 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish For Respondent-1: Mr.L.Chandrakumar for Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan For Respondent-2: Mr.M.Venkadeshkumar Government Advocate
Challenging the rejection of the approval petition filed by the Management, the above writ petition is filed.
MANAGEMENT OF D.C.M. CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED [AIR 1978 SC 1004] and came to a conclusion that domestic enquiry was conducted in conformity with the principles of natural justice and that prima facie case has been proved by evidence and the application was filed in time after paying one month's salary fully to the worker. Only in respect of the issue with regard to whether the punishment order amounts to victimisation or not, it has decided against the Management. According to the Authority, the employee unauthorisedly absented himself from duty with effect from 21.03.2009. On 28.10.2009, he submitted an application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Without deciding the application for VRS, a charge memo came to be issued on 21.01.2010. The Management has failed to prove before the Authority that the first respondent employee is ineligible to apply under VRS by producing appropriate Standing Orders or bylaws of the Transport Corporation. Since the Management failed to prove the fact that the employee was not entitled to get voluntary retirement, it was construed as victimisation.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(ADI MDU)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
TK
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation)
DMS Compound, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, Advocate SR.No.22782
+1cc to Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan, Advocate SR.No.22020
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.23188
W.P.NO.1011 OF 2015
VSN II(CO) GMY(27/07/2020)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of a charge memo without deciding the Voluntary Retirement Scheme application constitutes victimisation.
Whether the employee is ineligible for VRS due to unauthorised absence without proof of ineligibility by Management.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalla Ram v. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works LimitedReferred¶8
LALLA RAM VS. MANAGEMENT OF D.C.M. CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED [AIR 1978 SC 1004] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Limited
V.Sivalingam
Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour Conciliation
M.GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
