Dismissed¶46

The Managment, v. The Special Deputy

Madras HC6 Jan 2025WP/12367/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Approval petition Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act; refusal of approval; dismissal for unauthorized/unauthorised absence; Conductor TNSTC Salem; punishment too harsh/disproportionate; limited jurisdiction of approval authority; certiorari Article 226; enquiry officer recommendation vitiated enquiry; Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works AIR 1978 SC 1004; 2011-LLJ-646 (Mad); W.P. No.12367 of 2015; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that dismissal of the workman for unauthorized absence is too harsh, and therefore the 1st respondent's refusal to grant approval for the dismissal cannot be set aside. ¶45

The Managment, Vs The Special Deputy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent's order refusing approval of the dismissal (A.P. No.81 of 2012) — declined on the sole ground of disproportionate punishment despite natural justice having been followed — exceeds his limited jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and is liable to be set aside. +2 more

¶29

Court's answer

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition itself under Article 226, without sending the matter once again to the 1st respondent, taking into account the long pendency of the case and the fact that the workman was still working under the same respondent.

¶45

Key takeaways

The Court stated that it is well settled law that the enquiry officer's duty is only to render findings on whether the charges were proved; awarding punishment is for the disciplinary authority, and the enquiry officer should not recommend either major or minor punishment.obiter¶40
The Court observed that the enquiry officer's recommendation of major punishment showed a biased approach towards the delinquent and vitiated the enquiry proceedings.obiter¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Dhanabal, J.), W.P. No.12367 of 2015, decided 06.01.2025: The Management of TNSTC (Salem) challenged, by Writ of Certiorari under Article 226, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour's rejection (A.P. No.81 of 2012 dated 15.05.2013) of its approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the dismissal of a Conductor who absented himself from 08.03.2011; approval had been refused solely on the ground that the dismissal was disproportionately harsh, though natural justice, prima facie evidence, absence of malafide and payment of one month salary were conceded. Invoking Article 226 and without remitting the matter to the 1st respondent (given long pendency and the workman still serving), the Court held that dismissal for unauthorized absence is too harsh and the refusal to grant approval cannot be set aside; it further observed that the enquiry officer's recommendation of major punishment showed bias and vitiated the enquiry. Writ Petition dismissed.

¶1

W.P. No.12367 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.01.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶5

W.P. No.12367 of 2015 and W.M.P. No.1 of 2015

¶6

The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem

¶7

represented by its General Manager

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶11

E. Sengottuvelu .. Respondents PRAYER: The Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶12

India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records in proceedings

¶13

pursuant to the order passed in Approval Petition No.81 of 2012 dated

¶14

15.05.2013 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Aswin For Respondents : Mr. T. Chezhian, Additional Government Pleader [for R1] R2- No appearance.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P. No.12367 of 2015

¶20

respondent in A.P. No.81 of 2012 dated 15.05.2013.

¶21

The short facts necessary to dispose of the Writ petition are as

¶22

follows:-

¶23

The 2nd respondent was working as Conductor under the petitioner's Management and he did not report for duty continuously from 08.03.2011 onwards without prior permission. Therefore, a charge memo dated 12.04.2011 was issued to the 2nd respondent. After receipt of charge memo, the 2nd respondent has not submitted any explanation. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings were initiated and domestic enquiry was conducted after giving sufficient opportunities. The enquiry officer was also filed his report. As per the report, the charges were proved. Therefore, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the Management filed an approval petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the approval petition. Challenging the same, the present Writ filed has been filed by the Management.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶25

the 2nd respondent was working as 'Conductor' and he was continuously absented in duty from 08.03.2011. Therefore, a charge memo was issued and

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P. No.12367 of 2015

¶29

thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted and charges were proved. On the proven charges, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service. Therefore, an approval petition was filed before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent without considering the real charges, refused to grant approval. The 1st respondent has agreed that opportunity was given to the 2nd respondent and there are prima facie evidence to prove the charges and there is no any malafide intention and one month salary was also given to him. However, he refused to grant permission on the ground that the punishment is too harsh. The 1st respondent is not a competent authority to decide the disproportionate punishment and his jurisdiction is a limited jurisdiction, while awarding approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he exceeded his limit and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶30

4. No representation for the 2nd respondent.

¶31

In this case, the order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by

¶32

the Management on the ground that the 1st respondent has exceeded his limit and after recording that the principles of natural justice has been followed and

¶33

there is a prima facie case based on the acceptable evidence and there is no

¶34

any malafide intention and one month salary was also paid to the workman,

¶35

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

¶36

3/6

¶37

W.P. No.12367 of 2015

¶38

the approval was declined only based on the disproportionate punishment.

¶39

The 1st respondent has referred the judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-I) vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Chennai and another reported in 2011-LLJ-646 (Mad). The Writ Court passed an order by invoking power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. But already, the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law and framed guidelines in Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works (AIR) 1978 (SC) 1004 . But the 1st respondent has referred only the judgment of Madras High Court wherein it is held that "dismissal of workman for unauthorised absence is too harsh". The 1st respondent has no authority to decide the severity of punishment. However, he declined to grant approval.

¶40

Even according to the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has recommended for awarding major punishment. The above said observation made by the enquiry officer shows his bias approach to the delinquent and it is well settled law that the duty of the enquiry officer is to render findings as to whether the charges were proved or not. It is for the disciplinary authority to award proper punishment and it is not the duty of the enquiry officer to recommend either major or minor punishment. Therefore, the above said

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

W.P. No.12367 of 2015

¶44

observation made by the enquiry officer has vitiated the enquiry proceedings.

¶45

This Court, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and without sending the matter once again to the 1st respondent, taking into consideration the long pendency of the case and also the workman is still working under the same respondent, is inclined to dispose this Writ petition. This Court, by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India held that dismissal of workman for unauthorized absence is too harsh. Therefore, refusal to grant approval for the petition filed by the petitioner cannot be set aside.

¶46