Transport corporation challenged rejection of approval for dismissing a workman for unauthorised absence. The court found violations beyond non-payment of one month's wages: ex parte enquiry and inadequate proof of service of notices, and declined to interfere.
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.29362 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No.29362 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
The Management
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007 Rep. by its General Manager. ... Petitioner
/vs/
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records passed by the first respondent in A.P.No.77 of 2012 dated 14.04.2014 and to quash the same and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.29362 of 2015
For Petitioner ... Mr.Aswin For R1 ... Mrs.M.Jayanthy Additional Government Pleader For R2 ... Mr.P.Jagadeesan
ORDER
Heard Mr.Aswin, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mrs.M.Jayanthy, the learned Additional Government Pleader for R1, Mr.P.Jagadeesan, the learned counsel for R2.
alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence. When the order of dismissal
has been submitted for getting approval from the first respondent, it was rejected on the observation that the conditions contemplated under Section
33 (2)(b) of the ID Act has not been complied.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.29362 of 2015
the first respondent appropriate authority has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works reported in AIR 1978 © 1004 to find out whether the guidelines in the said judgment has been complied in the present case before according approval to the order of dismissal. From the order of the first respondent it appears that the enquiry has been conducted ex parte and the second respondent has not been given with appropriate opportunities and hence it is violation of principles of natural justice. It is further observed that the petitioner has not paid the one month wages and for that no documents have been submitted.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.29362 of 2015
and in which the photocopy of the cheque for one month salary is found. However while discussing the merits it is observed that the petitioner did not produce any document to substantiate the fact that one month salary is settled to the second respondent.
rejecting the approval. It is further observed that the order has been passed ex parte . The petitioner claims that notice have been served on the second respondent properly and in this regard Exs.P3 and P4 (Enquiry notices) have been furnished. However, it is stated that notices have been sent through RPAD without filing any supporting documents and a copy of the notice alone is furnished stating that notice has been served. The petitioner cannot expect the appropriate authority to accept the same.
salary, I feel that the order passed by the first respondent in A.P.No.77 of 2012 dated 14.04.2014 does not require any further interference.
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.29362 of 2015
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.09.2024
Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order bkn
To:
The Special Duty Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Chennai.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.29362 of 2015
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
bkn
W.P.No.29362 of 2015
25.09.2024
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Labour authority rightly rejected approval of the dismissal of a workman for unauthorised absence under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical WorksReferred¶4
AIR 1978 © 1004 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., rep. by its General Manager
The Special Duty Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Chennai
R.Murugan
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
