This writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to approve a dismissal order arising from an ex-parte enquiry was dismissed. The Court held that the Labour Court's findings regarding the violation of natural justice and disproportionality of punishment were without infirmity.
The writ petition stood dismissed as it was devoid of merits.
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 : 21.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No. 16536 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.19721 of 2018
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Limited, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.K.Shanmugam
2.The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 20.03.2017 passed in A.P.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner: Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
For R1 : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu For R2 : Mr.P.Ganesh Government Advocate
ORDER
Based on the charges of unauthorised absence for the period between 21.06.2011 to 20.08.2011, the petitioner had served a charge memo on the first respondent dated 26.08.2011 pursuant to which, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and the charges were held to be proved. Consequently, by an order dated 09.01.2015, the first respondent was terminated from the service. On the same day, the petitioner-Management had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) before the concerned authority seeking for approval of the dismissal order. The order came to be rejected on 20.03.2017, which is put under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The authority had found that enquiry proceedings were not filed, which is contrary to the claim made by the Management and therefore, by applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004, had found that the enquiry was against the principles of natural justice. The other findings given was that the enquiry was not based on proper evidences and the punishment imposed was also disproportionate to the levelled charges.
3.I do not find any infirmity in such findings of the Labour Court. The enquiry was held ex-parte and that apart, for a charge of unauthorised absence for a period of two months, the punishment of removal from service has been made. As such, the view of the authority that the punishment is disproportionate, cannot be found fault.
4.In the result, this writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Dua
To
+1cc to Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.4172
W.P.No. 16536 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.19721 of 2018
RK(CO) SB(11/02/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court's finding that the ex-parte enquiry violated principles of natural justice and that the punishment was disproportionate requires interference.
Whether the dismissal of the Management's application under Section 33(2)(b) was arbitrary or illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical WorksApplied¶16
Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works, AIR 1978 SC 1004 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) Limited
K.Shanmugam
The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai
M.S.RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
