Transport corporation challenged rejection of approval for dismissing a workman for fare misappropriation. The court held the management failed to prove it paid the full one month's wages required under Section 33(2)(b), and upheld the Approval Authority's rejection, dismissing the writ petition.
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.28060 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.28060 of 2015 and M.P.No.2 of 2015
The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Vellore Division, Vellore-9, Rep. by its General Manager. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.V.Srinivasan 2. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), DMS Compound, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records passed by the 2nd respondent in A.P.No.229 of 2012 on 27.06.2014 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Saravana Kumar For Respondents :Mr.R.Govindasamy (for R1) Mrs.Jayanthy (for R2) Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Approval
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.28060 of 2015
Authority rejecting the approval for the proposal of imposing punishment of dismissal against the 1st respondent/workman dated 27.06.2014 made in A.P.No.229 of 2012.
by the Approval Authority while granting the approval for dismissal. For the
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.28060 of 2015
sake of convenience, the essential points made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
this regard in Lalla Ram's case [cited supra] are extracted hereunder.
“13. The position that emerges from the above quoted decisions of this Court may be stated thus :
In proceedings under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal is confined to the enquiry as to
(i) whether a proper domestic enquiry 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 regard being had to the position settled by the decisions of this Court in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co, v. Ram Probesh Singh (1963-I LL J 291), Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Kumar (1961-ILLJ 511), Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen [(1963) 2 SCR 83], Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Management & Ors (1973- ILLJ 278), and Eastern Electric and Trading Co. v. Baldev Lal ((1975) LIC 1435 (SC)) that though generally speaking the award of punishment for misconduct under the Standing Orders is a matter for the management to decide and the Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or too severe yet an inference of mala fides may in certain cases be drawn from the imposition of unduly harsh, severe, unconscionable or shockingly
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.28060 of 2015
disproportionate punishment;
(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 game transaction applied to the authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken by him.
If these conditions are satisfied, the Industrial Tribunal would grant the approval which would relate back to the date from which the employer had ordered the dismissal. If however, the domestic enquiry suffers from any defect or infirmity, the labour authority will have to find out on its own assessment of the evidence adduced before it whether there was justification for dismissal and if it so finds it will grant approval of the order of dismissal which would also relate back to the date when the order was passed provided the employer had paid or offered to pay wages for one month to the employee and the employer had within the time indicated above applied to the authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken by him.”
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.28060 of 2015
given a categorical finding as to whether the petitioner has paid wages for one month to the 1st respondent in compliance with the requirements contemplated under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
his side and show whether there is any deficit. Since the initial burden itself has
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.28060 of 2015
not been discharged to the satisfaction of the Approval Authority, it is difficult to expect that the authority should record the shortfall of the one month's salary paid to the 1st respondent before rejecting the approval for the above reason. Since the petitioner could not establish that all essential requirements have been complied for getting a successful approval for the order of dismissal, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Approval Authority. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.09.2024
Speaking / Non Speaking order Index : Yes / No
ars
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), DMS Compound, Chennai.
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.28060 of 2015
Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.28060 of 2015
R.N.MANJULA, J.
ars
W.P.No.28060 of 2015 and M.P.No.2 of 2015
11.09.2024
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Approval Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing evidence like a Labour Court in rejecting approval for dismissal.
Whether the employer proved payment of full one month's wages under Section 33(2)(b) as required for approval.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalla Ram v. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. and anotherRelied on¶3
1978 AIR 1004 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Vellore Division, Vellore-9, Rep. by its General Manager
V.Srinivasan
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), DMS Compound, Chennai
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
