Dismissed¶59

The General Manager v. a.Venkatesa Perumal

Madras HC28 Mar 2025WP/19046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 33(2)(b) approval petition; delay in filing approval petition; six days delay fatal; simultaneous filing with dismissal order; unexplained delay; Lalla Ram DCM Chemical AIR 1978 SC 1004 five ingredients; C. Iyandhurai W.A. No.1555 of 2022 Division Bench; Rule 64(2) Industrial Disputes Rules 1958; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram; dismissal of daily-wages driver; Special Joint Commissioner of Labour; refusal of approval; terminal benefits to legal heirs; death of workman during pendency; writ of certiorari dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (WMP.No.18409 of 2019) closed; no relief to the petitioner corporation; corporation directed to settle the entire terminal benefits of the deceased workman to his legal heirs within four weeks.

The General Manager Vs a.Venkatesa Perumal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour was justified in rejecting the management's approval petition on the ground that it was not filed simultaneously with the dismissal order (six-day delay), given that the word 'simultaneous' is not defined in the Act or the rules. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The approval petition was not filed simultaneously with the order of dismissal; the admitted six-day delay was unexplained, and in the absence of proper explanation even a single day's delay is fatal; hence the requirement of Section 33(2)(b) has not been fulfilled and the approval does not merit acceptance.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Appreciating the materials in proper perspective, the rejection of the approval petition by the Labour Court cannot be said to be erroneous; the Division Bench decision in the C.Iyandhurai case is in line with this Court's view.

¶53

Key takeaways

Since the workman had passed away pending the Writ petition, this Court directs the petitioner corporation to settle his entire terminal benefits in favour of his legal heirs within a period of four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Industrial Law — Approval under S. 33(2)(b), ID Act: Madras HC (M. Dhandapani, J.) dismisses the writ filed by TNSTC (Villupuram) Ltd. challenging the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour's order dated 14.05.2018 in A.P.No.3 of 2014 refusing approval to the dismissal of workman A. Venkatesa Perumal. The dismissal took effect on 22.01.2014 but the approval petition was filed only on 28.01.2014 — an admitted six-day delay — with no explanation offered. Applying the five Lalla Ram (AIR 1978 SC 1004) ingredients and relying on the Division Bench ruling in The Management, TNSTC (Salem) Ltd. v. C. Iyandhurai (W.A. No.1555 of 2022, decided 01.08.2022), the Court holds that without proper explanation for delay even a single day's delay is fatal, that the Section 33(2)(b) requirement was therefore unfulfilled, and that the authority's rejection was not erroneous. As the workman died during pendency, the corporation was directed to pay his legal heirs the entire terminal benefits within four weeks. Writ dismissed; no costs; WMP closed.

¶1

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶7

and WMP.No.18409 of 2019

¶8

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram Region, Villupuram – 605 602, Rep. by its General Manager.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

A.Venkatesa Perumal

¶12

The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai made in A.P.No.3 of 2014 dated 14.05.2018 and quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Pavithra

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, for R1 : Mr.K.Surendran, APG, for R2 O R D E R

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶19

This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 14.05.2018 made in A.P.No.3 of 2014.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent/workmen was appointed temporarily as a driver in the petitioner corporation on daily wages basis on 01.09.2005 at Titakudi Branch and was subsequently transferred to Kallakurichi-II Branch. While so, pursuant to the report submitted by the Branch Manager, Kallakurici-II stating that the 1^st respondent was absent from duty from 03.05.2013 continuously without any prior intimation, the petitioner corporation issued a charge memo dated 27.06.2013, for which, though the 1^st respondent/workman sent a reply, as the said reply was not satisfactory, the petitioner corporation proceeded with the enquiry and after conducting enquiry by affording opportunity, as the charges levelled against the 1^st respondent were proved, the petitioner corporation passed an order of dismissal against the 1^st respondent on 22.01.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner corporation filed an approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the 2^nd respondent. However, by the impugned order, the 2^nd respondent refused to

¶21

2/9

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶24

grant approval to the petitioner corporation. Challenging the same, the petitioner corporation is before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner corporation submitted that, the 2^nd respondent had rejected the approval petition on the ground that there was a delay of six days, which is not sustainable, since mere delay of 6 days in filing the approval petition will not vitiate the entire proceedings, While so, rejecting the approval petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that, the same was not filed simultaneously before the authority is not sustainable, as the word simultaneous mentioned is not explained either in the Act or in the rules. Hence, the order of the 2^nd respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed for appropriate orders.

¶26

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent submitted that, though the 1^st respondent was dismissed from service on 22.01.2014, however, the petitioner corporation had filed the approval petition only on 28.01.2014 with a delay of 6 days, which is an incurable defect as per the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport

¶27

3/9

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶30

Corporation (Salem) Limited Vs. C.Iyandhurai and anr. (W.A. No.1555 of 2022) dated 01.08.2022. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

¶31

“The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent-Authority in dismissing the appellant-Management's approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The rejection of the approval petition was on the ground that there was shortfall in payment of one month salary to the first respondent-employee and there was eight days delay in filing the approval petition. The learned Single Judge, while adverting to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Rule 64(2) of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, observed that an application seeking approval of dismissal of an employee needs to be served with the order of punishment and simultaneously, approval application has to be filed before the Authority, and otherwise, the approval petition cannot be entertained and hence, the learned Single Judge observed that the second respondent-authority rightly rejected the approval petition. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge, while not interfering with the order passed by the second respondent-authority in dismissing the approval petition, made it clear that the first respondent-employee would

¶32

4/9

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶35

be entitled to all monetary benefits due to him and the appellant-Management was expected to extend the same and the period for compliance was also given by the learned Single Judge. Looking into the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find no ground made out to entertain the Writ Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶36

On the above said contentions heard learned Additional

¶37

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

The ingredients which should be satisfied by the employer while filing the approval petition have been spelt out in the decision of the Apex Court in Lalla Ram Vs. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. and Ors ., reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004 , wherein the Supreme Court held thus :-

¶39

''(i) whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing Orders and principles of natural justice has been held;

¶40

5/9

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶43

(ii) whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out;

¶44

(iii) whether the employer had come to a bona fide conclusion that the employee was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice and was not intended to victimise the employee;

¶45

(iv) whether the employer has paid or offered to pay Wages for one month to the employee; and

¶46

(v) 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 by him.''

¶47

7. From the materials available on record it is evident that the

¶48

approval petition was not filed simultaneously when the order of dismissal had come to be passed. It is even the admitted case of the petitioner that there is a delay of six days. It is the consistent view of the courts that there should be proper explanation for the delay and in the absence of the same, even a single day's delay is fatal. Though in Lalla Ram's case, it has been

¶49

held that reasonable delay, even then the reasonableness should be

¶50

6/9

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶53

explained. However, in the case on hand, there is no explanation for the delay, much less any explanation, which is reasonable and in such a circumstances, the requirement of Section 33(2)(b) has not been fulfilled and, therefore, the same does not merit acceptance. Appreciating the materials in proper perspective, the Labour Court has rejected the approval petition, which cannot be said to be erroneous. Further, the decision of the Divison Bench of this Court in C.Iyandhurai case (supra) is also in line with the decision of this Court.

¶54

8. Further, it was brought to the notice of this Court that, pending the Writ petition, the 2 nd respondent/workman had passed away. In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner corporation to settle the entire terminal benefits in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased 2 nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No

¶56

7/9

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.19046 of 2019

¶59

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶60

28.03.2025 skt NCC : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Index : Yes / No