The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking quashment of an order rejecting an application for approval of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, finding the rejection justified due to delayed filing and defective enquiry.
Writ petition dismissed; order of the Labour Court rejecting approval stands upheld; no costs awarded.
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.
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.27979 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.30024 of 2017 & 34365 of 2018
The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram - 605 602, Rep. by its Managing Director ...Petitioner
Vs.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent made in A.P.No.20/2015 dated 04.11.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aswin, SC
For Respondents : Mr.K.Arunagiri, for R1
1/8
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
O R D E R
This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 04.11.2016 made in A.P.No.20/2015 as illegal and
against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2/8
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
vide present impugned order dated 04.11.2016. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
though, the petitioner corporation paid a sum of Rs.21,310/- to the 1st respondent towards one month salary, the 2nd respondent has failed to consider the same. Further, delay of 15 days in filing the approval petition will not vitiate the entire proceedings, while so, rejecting the approval petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that, the same was not filed simultaneously before the authority is not sustainable, as the word simultaneous mentioned is not explained either in the Act or in the rules. Hence, the order of the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed for appropriate orders.
though departmental proceedings were initiated as against the workmen and he was dismissed from service as early as on 28.01.2015, however, the petitioner corporation had filed the approval petition only on 13.02.2015, after a delay of 15 days, which is fatal. Further, the petitioner corporation 3/8
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
failed to take note of the fact that the 1st respondent was acquitted from the criminal case filed by the police, for which case, the departmental proceedings were initiated as against the workmen, which ended in dismissal. Hence, after considering all the above said facts, the 2nd respondent had rightly passed the present impugned order rejecting the approval petition, which does not warrant interference of this Court and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of this Writ petition.
4/8
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
Chemicals Works Ltd. & Ors. In the said decision, the Apex Court has
prescribed the procedure to be followed while deciding the approval petition. F or better appreciation, the holdings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision stated supra is as follows:
''(i) whether a proper domestic e nquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing Orders and principles of natural justice has been held;
(ii) whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out;
(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;
(iv) whether the employer has paid or offered to pay Wages for one month to the employee; and
(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.''
5/8
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
7. From the materials available on record that, it is seen that the
enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, and that the approval petition was filed with a delay. Both the above aspects weighed in the mind of the Labour Court while rejecting the approval petition. Merely because one month salary is paid, it would not be the basis for the Labour Court to grant approval. All the ingredients as stated in Lalla Ram case should be complied with. In the case on hand, the domestic enquiry having found to be not held in accordance with law coupled with the fact that there is delay
in the filing of the approval petition, the Labour Court had rejected the approval. Further the submission of the Management that simultaneous would not mean parallel and that the delay of 15 days cannot be construed
to be a delay is wholly unacceptable for the simple reason that only to safeguard the interest of the workman, simultaneous procedure had been contemplated. Therefore, it is not open to the Management to file the approval petition as suits its convenience and, therefore, the delay is definitely fatal. Hence, this Court is of the view that, the order passed by the Labour Court does not suffer any perversity and the rejection of the approval petition is fully justified and the same cannot be interfered with. 6/8
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.07.2023
skt
NCC : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Chennai – 6.
7/8
W.P.No.27979 of 2017
M.DHANDAPANI., J.
skt
W.P.No.27979 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.30024 of 2017 & 34365 of 2018
03.07.2023
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is justified due to delay in filing and defective domestic enquiry.
Whether a delay of 15 days in filing the approval petition defeats the requirement of filing 'simultaneously' with the domestic inquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalla Ram Vs. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. and Ors.Followed¶33
AIR 1978 SC 1004 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram
S.Govindarajan
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
