Management challenged rejection of its Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act approval for a driver's dismissal, remitted earlier and rejected again for delay in filing the approval application despite timely dispatch by registered post.
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(MD)No.19112 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17845 of 2024
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Madurai Region, By-pass Road, Madurai.
... Petitioner
Vs
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the first respondent pertaining to its impugned order A.P.No.59 of 2015 dated 29.12.2023 and to quash the same as illegal.
1/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
| For Petitioner | : Mr.Herold Singh.S.C. |
|---|---|
| For R1 | : Mr.G.Vairam Santhosh |
| Additional Government Pleader | |
| For R2 | : Mr.A.K.Thangavelu |
O R D E R
The petitioner Management Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, Madurai Region has filed this writ petition as against the orders passed by the first respondent in A.P.No.59 of 2015, dated 29.12.2023.
2.This approval petition in A.P.No.59 of 2015 was filed before the first respondent as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval for the order of dismissal passed by the Management as against the second respondent. After conducting enquiry on the allegation that the second respondent Driver in the petitioner Corporation has obtained the job by producing bogus eighth standard certificate, the second respondent was dismissed by the Management by order, dated 26.03.2015. A similar application for approval was submitted by the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and the
2/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
same was rejected by the first respondent 25.07.2018 that the Management has failed to pay the last month wages. Aggrieved against the order, the Management has already filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.23580 of 2018 and the second respondent has also filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.25021 of 2018. Both the petitions were taken together and were disposed by this Court on 08.09.2022 setting aside the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the request of the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act on the ground of non payment of wages and remitted the matter for fresh consideration and this Court has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the second respondent directing the Management to pay the provident fund and other terminal benefits eligible for the second respondent.
3.Therefore, in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.23580 of 2018, the first respondent has considered the issue again under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and by the order impugned in this petition, has once again rejected on the ground that the application required under Section 33(2)(b) was not filed simultaneously.
4.This Court while entertaining the writ petition has granted an
3/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
interim order. The second respondent has filed an application to vacate the interim order and therefore, the writ petition has been taken up for final disposal.
5.The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that it is the second round of litigation on the order passed by the first respondent on the request made by the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. He further submits that while the first respondent considered the application in the year 2018 has framed the issue including the issue with regard to the date of application filed by the Management as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and found that the application was filed in time simultaneously as required under the Act. However, the first respondent has rejected the earlier request only on the ground that the last drawn wages has not been paid as required under the Act. However, when it has been set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration, a new reason has been found by the first respondent to reject the request of the Management that the request for approval as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act has been made belatedly on 30.03.2015. He further submits that the authority has found that the enquiry conducted by the Management in a proper manner by affording all reasonable
4/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
opportunities. The authority has also found that the second respondent has obtained the job only by producing a bogus certificate. The authority has also held that there is no unfair trade practice. However, the authority has found that the application was made belatedly on 30.03.2015. The order of dismissal was passed on 26.03.2015, which falls on Thursday. The request under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was made by the Management on 27.03.2015 (Friday). The application was received by the first respondent on 30.03.2015 (Monday) since Saturdays and Sundays happened to be holidays. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has also produced the postal receipt for the application despatched by the Management to the first respondent on 27.03.2015.
6.The learned Counsel for the second respondent submits that the application needs to be filed simultaneously and there is no justification for the Management in filing the application on 30.03.2015. He further submits that the Management is having branches at Chennai and they ought to have filed the application on 26.03.2015 or on 27.03.2015. However, they have filed the application only on 30.03.2015 and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the first respondent.
5/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical
Works Limited reported in (1978) 3 SCC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed the guidelines as under:
"1.Whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provision of law.
4.Whether there is any unfair labour practice in passing the order.
5.Whether the last drawn salary of one month was paid by the Management at the time of dismissal.
6.Whether the employer has simultaneously or within such reasonably short time as to form part of the same transaction applied to the authority before which, the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken."
8.In the earlier round of litigation, the application filed before the
first respondent was rejected as if that the employer has not paid wages
6/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
for one month to the employee. However, it was now rectified that the wages have been properly paid as required, to the employee. The first respondent has erred in passing an order as if that the application required to be filed by the Management has not been filed simultaneously or within a reasonable short time and it has been filed only on 30.03.2015. The very same authority, while deciding the earlier round of litigation has found that the requirement under Clause 5 of the Act as stated in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works Limited has been complied with. However, in the present application, a reason has been invented by the authority, which has already been answered by the authority and has passed the impugned order.
9.This Court is not appreciating the manner, in which, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application was filed immediately next day of the date of dismissal (27.03.2015) through registered post, which was also received by the authority on the next working day i.e., on 30.03.2015. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
10.Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.10.2024
Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR
8/9
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
LR
W.P(MD)No.19112 of 2024
22.10.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Authority erred in rejecting the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act on the ground that it was not filed simultaneously with dismissal.
Whether an application dispatched by registered post the next day and received on the next working day satisfies the simultaneity requirement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works LimitedRelied on¶7
(1978) 3 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited
The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour
K Kannan
B. Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
