Dismissed¶9

The Management v. Mr.v.Dhandapani

Madras HC10 Dec 2025WP/25522/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal of approval of dismissal; fairness of domestic enquiry; natural justice/due opportunity; workman participated in enquiry without salary for service period, without suspension or permission to join duty; unauthorised absence 03.12.2012-25.06.2013; dismissal 19.09.2014; approval refused 28.11.2018 in A.P.No.257 of 2014; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.; Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai; fresh appointment after I.D.No.49 of 2010; superannuation 31.03.2017; writ of certiorari under Article 226, Constitution of India; outcome - writ petition dismissed 10.12.2025, approval-refusal upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed, the refusal of approval stands upheld, the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.25050 of 2019) was closed and no costs were awarded. ¶9

The Management Vs Mr.v.Dhandapani — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed, the refusal of approval stands upheld, the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.25050 of 2019) was closed and no costs were awarded.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent (Special Joint Commissioner of Labour) rightly refused to grant approval to the dismissal imposed on the workman on 19.09.2014, i.e., whether it could be concluded that a proper and fair enquiry giving due opportunity to the workman was held before imposing the punishment.

¶4

Court's answer

No proper opportunity was granted to the workman in the enquiry; consequently the second respondent's ultimate decision refusing approval cannot be faulted.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Ground for the above conclusion: although unauthorisedly absent, the workman reported back and participated in the proceedings while the management neither paid him salary for the period of service, nor placed him under suspension, nor permitted him to join duty.

¶8

Key takeaways

The second respondent's finding that the enquiry was not done in a fair and proper manner after giving due opportunity to the workman is neither a perverse finding nor an implausible view, and therefore warrants no interference.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), 10.12.2025, W.P.No.25522 of 2019: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. sought certiorari under Article 226 to quash the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour's order dated 28.11.2018 in A.P.No.257 of 2014 refusing approval to the dismissal (19.09.2014) of driver V. Dhandapani for unauthorised absence from 03.12.2012 to 25.06.2013. Held: the workman, given a fresh appointment from 27.10.2012 (following the order in I.D.No.49 of 2010), reported back and participated in the enquiry while the management neither paid his salary for the service period nor suspended him nor permitted him to join duty; hence no proper opportunity was granted and the refusal of approval is neither perverse nor implausible. By then the workman had superannuated on 31.03.2017. Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs. No statute other than Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked; no precedent was engaged with beyond reference to I.D.No.49 of 2010.

¶1

W.P.No.25522 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.25522 of 2019

¶7

and W.M.P.No.25050 of 2019

¶8

The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Villupuram - 605 602. ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

V.Dhandapani

¶11

Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the second respondent in A.P.No.257 of 2014 and to quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr.M.Aswin
For R1	: Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
For R2	: Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The writ petition is filed challenging the order 28.11.2018 passed by the the second respondent in A.P.No.257 of 2014.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.25522 of 2019

¶19

By the said order, the second respondent refused to grant approval to

¶20

the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent workman on 19.09.2014.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed as a driver with effect from 27.10.2012 and from 03.12.2012, he was unauthorisedly absent until 25.06.2013 and as such, a charge memorandum was issued. After conduct of enquiry proceedings, the order of punishment was passed on 19.09.2014.

¶22

When the above application was filed to grant approval, the second respondent refused to approve the same on the ground that the enquiry proceedings were not exhibited before the second respondent. Therefore, it was held that it could not be concluded that proper enquiry was held before imposing the punishment and accordingly, approval was refused. The said order itself was passed on 28.11.2018. It is stated that even before the order could be passed, the employee had attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31.03.2017.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.25522 of 2019

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when other evidence was produced before the authority, the authority ought not to have insisted upon the enquiry proceedings. From all the exhibits that were marked, it can be seen that the proceedings relating to the enquiry were duly produced before the second respondent. As a matter of fact, the application was also filed within a period of six days and therefore, there is no delay and thus the second respondent erred in refusing the approval and therefore, this Court should interfere in the matter.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondentworkman would submit that it was the duty of the petitioner - management to demonstrate as to how the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law with due opportunity of hearing. In this case, when the workman was absent from 03.12.2012 and when it is the case of the Workman that he was not well and the same was informed and also prayed for voluntary retirement or to grant him lighter duty which was refused in the earlier round and ultimately he was granted fresh employment as per the order in I.D.No.49 of 2010, the second round of charge memo was vindictively given. In fact, even for the period in which the workman was worked, his salary was not granted. When the 3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.25522 of 2019 workman was appearing before the Management even in the enquiry proceedings, without placing him under suspension or without paying any subsistence allowance or without even paying the salary for the period in which he was worked in a vindictive manner, the enquiry proceeded and the order was passed. Therefore, the second respondent was right in concluding that the enquiry was not conducted in fair manner, after giving due opportunity.

¶30

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶31

It can be seen that the workman was given fresh appointment with effect from 27.10.2012 and he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017. In that background, considering the fact that even though the Workman was unauthorisedly absent, when he reported back and was participating in the proceedings without even paying the salary for the period in which he has put in service and neither placing him under suspension nor permitting him to join duty, the enquiry has proceeded with. It can be concluded that no proper opportunity has been granted to the Workman and therefore, the ultimate decision of the second respondent that the enquiry was

¶32

not done in fair and proper manner after giving due opportunity to the 4/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.25522 of 2019 Workman cannot be said to be a perverse finding or an implausible view.

¶35