Dismissed

The General Manager v. J.Raju

Madras HC3 Jul 2023WP/19412/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a dismissal approval petition by the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour was dismissed. The Court held that the Labour Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petition due to non-compliance with statutory procedures during the domestic enquiry and lack of proof for one-month salary payment required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

The General Manager Vs J.Raju — Arbitration | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

¶7

and W.M.P.No.18686 of 2023

¶8

The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Ltd. Villupuram Region Vellore-632 009. .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.J.Raju

¶11

The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour D.M.S Compound Chennai .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction for call for the records of the 2^nd respondent made in A.P.No.46 of 2021 dated 30.08.2022 and quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr. R.Venkatesa Perumal

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent in A.P.No.46 of 2021.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the 1^st respondent who was

¶20

working as a conductor in the petitioner corporation. Due to his unauthorized work for 08.08.2017 to 15.09.2017, a charge memo was issued to the 1^st respondent. After conducting departmental enquiry, the 1^st respondent was dismissed from services vide order dated 20.01.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner corporation made an Application in A.P.No.46 of 2021 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of dismissal which was rejected by the 2^nd respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approval petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been rejected by the 2^nd respondent contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court i n case of Lalla Ram Vs. Management of D.C.M Chemical Works Ltd and Ors in Civil Appeal No.351 of 1971 dated 16.02.1978 in

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

¶25

which, the Apex Court has prescribed the procedure to be followed while deciding the approval petition. However, contrary to the said procedure, the

¶26

2nd respondent has rejected the approval petition filed by the petitioner Corporation.

¶27

Per Contra, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/Workman submitted that though the petitioner corporation claims to have conducted departmental enquiry, prior to the dismissal of the 2^nd respondent from service on 20.01.2021, however, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the 2^nd respondent. Further, the enquiry report was not placed before the 2^nd respondent in order to ascertain the fairness of the enquiry. Though the petitioner claims to have paid the one month salary to the 2^nd respondent, however, no materials were placed before the 2^nd respondent as to the payment of one month salary to substantiate their claim.

¶28

5. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

¶32

6. Admittedly, the petitioner Corporation has passed the order of

¶33

dismissal as against 1 st respondent/workman on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty, for which, the petitioner Corporation filed an approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) before the 2 nd respondent. It is an undisputed fact that the approval petition has to be decided based on the law laid down

¶34

by the Apex Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. Managment of D.C.M.

¶35

Chemicals Works Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004, wherein the

¶36

Apex Court held as under :-

¶37

''(i) whether a proper domestic e nquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing Orders and principles of natural justice has been held;

¶38

(ii) whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out;

¶39

(iii) whether the employer had come to a bona fide conclusion that the employee was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice and was not intended to victimise the employee;

¶40

(iv) whether the employer has paid or offered to pay Wages for one month to the employee; and

¶41

(v) whether the employer has simultaneously or within such reasonably short time as to form part of the same transaction applied to the authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken by him.''

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

¶45

7. In the present case, a perusal of the records reveal that all the

¶46

above aspects have been elaborately considered by the 1 st respondent while rejecting the approval petition filed by the petitioner Corporation. It is evident from the materials available on record that, the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, which was the reason for rejection of the approval sought for. Further, there is also no materials to substantiate the compliance of payment of one month's salary. In the above backdrop, the order passed by the 2 nd respondent does not suffer any vice of illegality and the rejection of the approval petition is fully justified which cannot be interfered with.

¶47

For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition is devoid on merits

¶48

and the same stands dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶49

03.07.2023

¶50

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No

¶51

NHS

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

NHS

The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour D.M.S Compound Chennai

W.P.No.19412 of 2023

03.07.2023

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

The General Manager v. J.Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. J.Raju

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

Ravindra Gettu Vs Bharat Petroleum

D. Justin Patrick Pushpara Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director

M/S.Rasipuram Textiles Vs The Superintending Engineer

Chellammal Vs The Manatement of

The Management Vs S.Govindarajan

Neelamalai Plantation Vs The Collector