This discretionary petition challenged the Labour Commissioner's order declining approval for dismissing an employee accused of negligence. The Court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's refusal to sanction dismissal.
Writ petition is dismissed; 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.26306 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.26306 of 2015
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam.
..Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of Certiorari, directing to call for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.262 of 2011 dated 18.04.2013 and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senapathi
For 1st Respondent : Mrs.M.Jayanthi, Additional Government Pleader
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.A.P.Sathyamurthi
--------------Page No.1/6
W.P.No.26306 of 2015
O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent in declining the approval sought for the order of dismissal made against the 2nd respondent by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while submitting the application for approval, all the five conditions contemplated under the judgment of Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works reported in AIR 1978 (SC) 1004 has been complied and even the 1st respondent Authority has accepted the compliance of all the requirements, but, had given a finding that the materials available on record did not prove the prima facie case against the 2nd respondent.
3. The 2nd respondent who was working as a driver in the
petitioner Corporation has been charged for the lapse of negligence on the allegation that due to his negligent driving, he caused the accident in which two lives were lost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis --------------Page No.2/6
W.P.No.26306 of 2015
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that for the compensation claimed by the family of the victim, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had found that the 2nd respondent's negligence was the reason for the accident and thereby awarded a compensation, which was paid by the petitioner.
5. In the impugned order, the 1st respondent had dealt about the availability of evidence to make out a prima faice case against the 2nd respondent and had observed that during the domestic enquiry no eye witness has been examined. When the fundamental fact of negligence has not been substantiated by examining the eye witness, it is difficult for the petitioner to expect the 1st respondent Authority to accept the validity of the prima facie case.
6. During the domestic enquiry, on the side of the Department,
a person who had inspected the place of occurrence alone was examined. Naturally the person who inspected the site could have gone to the site only after the accident and he cannot be a competent person to say about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis --------------Page No.3/6
W.P.No.26306 of 2015
the negligence alleged against the 2nd respondent.
7. As the 1st respondent Authority has properly appreciated the materials placed before him and the materials are found to be not satisfactory to make out a prima facie case, the 1st respondent has rightly declined to grant approval for the order of dismissal of the 2nd respondent.
8. I do not find any merits in the matter, hence, this writ petition is dismissed . No costs.
26.09.2024 dsa Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis --------------Page No.4/6
W.P.No.26306 of 2015
To:-
The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis --------------Page No.5/6
W.P.No.26306 of 2015
R.N.MANJULA, J.
dsa
W.P.No.26306 of 2015
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis --------------Page No.6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour's order declining approval for dismissal due to lack of prima facie case.
Whether the domestic enquiry materials were sufficient to substantiate the allegation of negligence against the employee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical WorksReferred¶2
Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works reported in AIR 1978 (SC) 1004 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited
The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai
S.Loganathan
R.N.Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
