Transport corporation challenged refusal to approve a conductor's dismissal under Section 33(2)(b). Acknowledgment cards showed enquiry notice was served though the workman did not appear; the court set aside the labour authority's refusal and remitted for fresh consideration.
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.19687 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.19687 of 2015 &
M.P. No. 1 of 2015
The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 07, Rep by its General Manager.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.D.Muruganantham ...Respondents
1/7
W.P.No.19687 of 2015
Prayer:
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent made in approval petition A.P.No.84 of 2011 dated 14.08.2013 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Aswin For Respondent 1: Court For Respondent 2: Mr. R.Dilli Kumar.
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation challenging the dismissal of their Approval Petition filed by them in A.P.No.84 of 2011 by order of the 1st respondent dated 14.08.2013. This Approval Petition has been filed under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
2/7
W.P.No.19687 of 2015
notice was also received by the 2nd respondent, however there was no
3/7
W.P.No.19687 of 2015
reply, constraining the petitioner management to dismiss the 2nd respondent with a month's salary by a dismissal order dated 28.02.2011.
28.02.2011 holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the
petitioner management did not follow the principles of Natural Justice as notice was not served on the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned order came to be passed.
was merely approving order of dismissal and the scope of enquiry in
4/7
W.P.No.19687 of 2015
such instances are restricted, they had not produced the documents to
show proof about the service of notice upon the 2nd respondent.
produced before this Court. The learned counsel would therefore seek an opportunity to demonstrate that the 2nd respondent despite notice has
failed to appear for the domestic enquiry.
the petitioner has failed to produce these documents and the
proceedings have been pending ever since 2010.
Court indicates that the enquiry notice has been issued to the 2nd respondent and he has received the same and has chosen not to appear
before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, since the dismissal was only on
5/7
W.P.No.19687 of 2015
the ground that no notice was given to the 2nd respondent equity
demands that it would be appropriate to allow the Writ Petition.
12.07.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Chennai.
6/7
W.P.No.19687 of 2015
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
W.P.No. 19687 of 2015
12.07.2024
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the approval of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) could be refused on the ground that enquiry notice was not served on the workman.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem, Rep by its General Manager
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai
D. Muruganantham
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
