Dismissed

The Managing Director v. P.Sathish Kumar

Madras HC26 Jun 2025REV.APLW(MD)/219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transport corporation sought review of writ orders holding its pay-reduction punishments were outside the Standing Orders. The court found the amended Standing Orders could not take effect from 01.04.2022 since the certified copy issued only on 29.07.2024 under Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, and dismissed the review applications.

What did the court decide?

None granted; review applications dismissed without costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Managing Director Vs P.Sathish Kumar — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Rev.Aplw(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 & 30 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Rev.AplW(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 and 30 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.23824, 23825, 23827, 23828, 23829, 23831, 23832 & 23833 of 2024 and 4583 of 2025

¶8

Rev.AplW(MD)No.219 of 2024

¶9

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Ltd.,), Kumbakonam.

¶10

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Ltd.,), Karur Region,

¶11

Karur – 639 003.

¶12

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Ltd.,) Karur Region, Musiri Branch, Karur.

¶13

... Petitioners/Respondents

¶14

Vs.

¶15

P.Sathishkumar ... Respondent / Petitioner

¶16

PRAYER : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.23114 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024.

¶17

1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Rev.Aplw(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 & 30 of 2025

¶20

(In all Review Applications) For Petitioners : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.D.Anbarasu

¶21

COMMON ORDER

¶22

These Review Applications filed to review the common orders passed by

¶23

this Court, in W.P.(MD)Nos.23111, 23112, 23114, 23071, 23089, 27371 of 2022 and 5671 of 2023 & 3011 of 2024, dated 15.03.2024.

¶24

2. The case of the writ petitioners is that, they were working as Drivers / Conductors in the respondents / review petitioners' Corporation. While in service, they were visited with a charge memo for certain counts of charges framed as against them by the review petitioners' Corporation. After receipt of the reply from the writ petitioners, the review petitioners not being satisfied by the explanation given by the writ petitioners, departmental enquiry was initiated against each and every one of them and the enquiry was concluded as charges proved as against the writ petitioners. Thereafter, on various dates, the orders of punishment came to be imposed on the petitioners respectively, by reversing the basic pay for a period of one stage / two stages with respect to each of the writ petitioners in the writ petitions. All the writ petitions were allowed

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Rev.Aplw(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 & 30 of 2025

¶28

observing that the disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to the Standing Orders of the Corporation, holding that the order of punishment being outside the purview of the Standing Orders, to be a perverse nullity, and that one which could not be enforced. Challenging the same, the Review Applications were preferred by the review petitioners on the ground that the punishment imposed on them was one which was mandated under the Standing Orders,

¶29

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners Corporation, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, submitted that if the writ petitioners are allowed to go scot- free, the Corporation would lose control over its administration and would be placed in an awkward situation where the administration of the Corporation itself would become difficult in the future. Further, he placed before me the Common Certified Standing Orders and drew my attention that the aforesaid Standing Orders which was implemented with effect from 1 st April 2022 and the same was inserted as per the order in SOA.No.4 of 1995 dated 01.04.2022 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. He further drew my attention to the punishments other than minor punishments, provided in Clause 30(iv) of the aforesaid Standing Orders, wherein, the reduction in the time scale of pay for the specified period was permitted.

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Rev.Aplw(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 & 30 of 2025

¶33

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents / writ petitioners

¶34

drew my attention to Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 4/1995 and pointed out that unless an appeal is preferred under Section 6, Section 7 would come into operation on the expiry of thirty days from the date on which copies of the order of the appellate authority are sent under Section 6 (2). Section 6 deals with appeals in the aforesaid Act and thereafter he pointed out that the Standing Order, which was placed before me by the learned counsel for the review petitioners Corporation, where the Sirasthar of the Labour Court, Chennai, had signed the same on 29.07.2024, that is, the date on which the copy was issued, and sent by the Appellate Authority to the respective Corporations.

¶35

5. He further also placed before me the circular issued by Chennai Transport Company, Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation dated 12.08.2024, giving effect to the standing order with effect from 01.08.2024 in terms of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 4/1995. In view of the same, the contention made by the review petitioners is not correct as the date of effect could not be effected from 01.04.2022 when the copy was signed on 29.07.2024, the same could be given effect only after the expiry of 7 days from the date of despatch by the Appellate Authority and

¶36

4/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Rev.Aplw(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 & 30 of 2025

¶39

hence, the review petitioners cannot give effect to the Standing Order with

¶40

effect from 01.04.2022. He categorically contended that, there is no ground for

¶41

review in the order and hence, sought for dismissal of these review petitions.

¶42

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

¶43

7. On going by the mandate of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, I do not find any necessity to review the order passed by this Court. Hence, the revision applications fail and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

8. Accordingly, these Review Applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶45

26.06.2025

¶46

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes LS

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Rev.Aplw(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 & 30 of 2025

¶50

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶51

¶52

Rev.AplW(MD)Nos.219 to 226 of 2024 and 30 of 2025

¶53

26.06.2025

¶54

6/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Managing Director v. P.Sathish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. P.Sathish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pilavenran Vs Ponmudi

S.Selvi Vs v.Balasubramanian

M.Ganesamoorthy Vs G.Reginamary

K.Muthu Kumar Vs Dr.S.Vishakan IAS

M.Ravindran Vs Arumugm

Jothibasu Vs Mariappan