Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging Labour Court order refusing approval of employee termination due to fraudulent certificate. High Court upheld dismissal, citing *Lalla Ram* precedent.
Writ appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.A.No.803 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.A.No.803 of 2024 and
C.M.P.No.5438 of 2024
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Trichy Region, Trichy-1.
... Appellant
Vs.
...Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
dismissal order dated 23.06.2023 made in W.P.No.11614 of 2015 passed
by the learned single of this Court.
Page 1/7
W.A.No.803 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.M.Muruali Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai for Mr.S.Ramachandran for R1 Mr.T.Chezhian Government Advocate for R2
J U D G M E N T
(The Judgement of the Court was delivered by J.Nisha Banu,J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed as against the dismissal order
dated 23.06.2023 made in W.P.No.11614 of 2015 passed by this Court.
The 1st respondent joined as a driver in the Appellant Transport Corporation on 22.07.1988 by producing a bogus certificate that he has passed 8th standard from M.K.L. Hindu Middle School, Arakkonam. A charge memo was issued and after giving sufficient opportunity, the 1st respondent was dismissed from service on 18.04.2012. Thereafter, the Corporation filed a petition under 33(2) (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, 2nd respondent for getting approval to the termination of the 1st respondent. However, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 05.12.2013, refused to approve the order of dismissal dated 18.04.2012 and also held that the
Page 2/7
W.A.No.803 of 2024
charges against the 1st respondent are not proved. Challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 05.12.2013, the appellant preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.11614 of 2015 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 23.06.2023, dismissed the writ petition confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent and holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to all the consequential benefits in lieu of the said order. Hence, the present appeal.
Page 3/7
W.A.No.803 of 2024
rejecting the approval petition and the learned single Judge of this Court also confirmed the said rejection order. Learned counsel for the appellant would further state that the 2nd respondent came to a wrong conclusion that the dismissal order is a revenge activity. It is well known to the authority that creating the bogus certificate and joining a government undertaking like the appellant Corporation is a grave misconduct. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent needs intervention by this Court.
Page 4/7
W.A.No.803 of 2024
the impugned order and the same needs no interference.
Page 5/7
W.A.No.803 of 2024
passing the order of dismissal. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the Writ Court, confirming the order passed by Labour Court, need not be interfered with.
(J.N.B,J.) (P.D.B., J.) Index : Yes / No 10.06.2024 Internet : Yes vsi
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Chennai - 600 006.
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Page 6/7
W.A.No.803 of 2024
and P.DHANABAL,J.
vsi
W.A.No.803 of 2024
10.06.2024
Page 7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court correctly applied the principle regarding lack of prima facie case and failure to examine the witness who issued the false certificate?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order refusing approval of termination?
Whether the admission of service by a bogus certificate constitutes grave misconduct justifying the rejection of the approval petition under Section 33(2)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
AIR 1978 (SC) 1004 Lalla Ram Vs. Management of DCM ChemicalsApplied¶42
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Trichy Region, Trichy-1
M.Periyasamy
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Chennai
J.NISHA BANU
P.DHANABAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
J.NISHA BANU and P.DHANABAL
Parties & counsel
