Petitioner challenged the rejected approval petition for removal of an employee. The Court held the rejection was correct as negligence was not proved and mechanical defects were ignored by the inquiry, especially given unblemished service.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was 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.P No.33349 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P.No.33349 of 2012 and MP.No.1 of 2012
The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Kumbakonam Limited, Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.V.Tamilarasu
2.Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), D.M.S. Compound, Chennai – 06.
.. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to pass a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Approval Petition No.61 of 2004 dated 20.05.2011, and to quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senapathy
For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for R1 Mr.T.Chezhian, AGP for R2.
1/8
W.P No.33349 of 2012
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner Management challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Approval Petition No.61 of 2024 dated 20.05.2011.
2/8
W.P No.33349 of 2012
dismissal, the petitioner's management filed an Approval Petition in A.P.No.61 of 2004 before the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second respondent refused to allow the petition and rejected the approval petition on the ground that the removal from service was against the natural justice. Now the said order has been challenged by the writ petitioner.
3/8
W.P No.33349 of 2012
second respondent failed to consider that the enquiry was properly conducted and the same was also not disputed. The reason for the accident was due to the defects in the steering, which was not analyzed by the enquiry officer, therefore the second respondent rejected the approval petition. The second respondent has no authority to decide the negligence on the part of the petitioner as he exceeded his limits, therefore the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.
W.P No.33349 of 2012
second respondent correctly rejected the petition on the grounds that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent and that the accident occurred due to the tightness of the steering, and there was no evidence to prove negligence on the part of the second respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the second respondent is in order. Moreover, the petitioner has been working for more than 12 years after the rejection of the approval petition without any grievances. Therefore he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
in the steering, the bus hit against the tamarind tree. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and rendered his findings, stating that the charges 5/8
W.P No.33349 of 2012
were proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. When the matter was sent for approval before the second respondent, it was dismissed by the second respondent, stating that the enquiry officer did not consider that since the car was coming from the opposite direction and in order to avoid accident, he turned the bus to the left side and thereafter due to tightness of the steering, the bus dashed against the tamarind tree. Further, there is no evidence to prove that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
6/8
W.P No.33349 of 2012
second respondent rightly refused to accept the approval petition and there is no irregularity or illegality of the order passed by the second respondent. Moreover, after the rejection of the approval petition for more than 12 years, the first respondent has been working in the same petitioner's corporation without any adverse remakrs, and he has rendered unblemished service, therefore, at this stage it is not appropriate to allow this writ petition. In view of the above said discussions, this writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.12.2024
Index: Yes/No. Internet/Yes/No drl
P.DHANABAL.J.
drl
To
7/8
W.P No.33349 of 2012
1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), D.M.S. Compound, Chennai – 06.
W.P.No.33349 of 2012 and MP.No.1 of 2012
20.12.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner of Labour rightly rejected the approval of removal of a bus driver accused of rash and negligent driving due to unaddressed mechanical defects.
Whether the subsequent unblemished service warrants quashing of the Commissioner's order refusing approval.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Kumbakonam Limited
V.Tamilarasu
Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), D.M.S. Compound, Chennai
P.Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
