The Management Vs The Special Deputy Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Management Vs The Special Deputy Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner: the writ petition stands dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.Nos.27415 of 2022 and 28965 of 2025) are closed; consequential direction that the petitioner management disburse the second respondent's retirement benefits in accordance with law within four months of receipt of a copy of the order (paras 80-83).

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.09.2016 of the first respondent (approval authority) in A.P. No.17 of 2012 declining approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the dismissal of the second respondent-driver is liable to be quashed, notwithstanding the non-production of enquiry proceedings, the 11-day delay in filing the approval petition, and the absence of records of the one-month salary payment. +1 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the records, the Management did not produce the enquiry proceedings of the domestic enquiry before the approval authority; such proceedings (day-to-day proceedings, recording of evidence and diary proceedings) are what enable the authority to form an opinion on the opportunity given to the delinquent to take part in the enquiry.

Ratio / Principle

Because the petitioner failed to produce the enquiry proceedings before the approval authority (leaving natural justice, prima facie case on acceptable evidence and victimisation unverifiable), filed the approval petition with an 11-day delay, and produced no records of the one-month salary payment, the approval authority correctly declined to grant approval.

Key takeaways

The writ petition filed on 18.10.2022 against the approval order dated 02.09.2016 suffers an unexplained delay of seven years and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.ratio¶75
In the meantime the workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2025; the Court held it was not appropriate to allow the writ petition.ratio¶75
Consequential direction: since the matter was pending from 2016, the petitioner management is directed to disburse the second respondent's retirement benefits in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Dhanabal J., single judge; decided 18-07-2025) dismisses W.P. No.28127 of 2022 filed by Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 02.09.2016 of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, in A.P. No.17 of 2012, whereby approval was refused under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the dismissal of its ex-driver G. Ravi (unauthorised absence from 18.11.2009; unanswered charge memo; ex parte domestic enquiry; second show cause notice of 08.11.2011; termination order 12.01.2012). Approval had been declined because the enquiry proceedings (day-to-day proceedings, recorded evidence and diary proceedings) were never produced before the approval authority, the approval petition was filed 11 days after termination (23.01.2012), and no records substantiated the alleged one-month salary payment of Rs.12,950.70/- by cheque. The writ petition was filed only on 18.10.2022 - an unexplained seven-year delay - and the workman superannuated on 31.05.2025; the Court held the approval authority acted correctly and dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, directing the management to disburse the workman's retirement benefits in accordance with law within four months.

WP No. 28127 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

WP No. 28127 of 2022

W.M.P.Nos.27415 of 2022 and 28965 of 2025

The Management Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

Petitioner

Vs

The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour

D.M.S. Complex, IV th Floor, Teynampet, Chennai- 600 006.

2.Thriu.G. Ravi, Ex-Driver, No. 1/142, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Jalladayan Pettai, chennai- 600 100.

Respondents

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records p ertaining to the order passed in A.P. No.17 of 2012 dated 02.09.2016 on the file of 1st Respondent, Chennai-6 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gauthamraj

For Respondent(s): Mr.LSM.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader for R1

M/s. R.Sreedhar for R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/Metropolitan Transport

Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., to quash the order of approval authority, 1st respondent in A.P.No.17 of 2012 dated 02.09.2016, wherein the petitioner

Management filed an approval petition for the dismissal order passed against the 2nd respondent and the same was dismissed, against which the present writ

petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2.The 2nd respondent worked as a driver in the petitioner's management.

While so, on 18.11.2009, he had unauthorizedly absent to the duty, for that

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

charge memo was issued and explanation was called from the 2nd respondent on

09.12.2010. For the charge memo, the 2nd respondent did not submit any explanation. Thereafter the 2nd respondent, the petitioner Transport Corporation

has ordered to conduct a domestic enquiry. Accordingly, a domestic enquiry was held on various dates, but the 2nd respondent did not participate in the enquiry. On the result, the enquiry officer had passed an ex-parte order on 12.07.2011.

After the enquiry officer's report, the petitioner corporation had caused second show cause notice to the 2nd respondent on 08.11.2011. It was received by the

2nd respondent on 25.11.2022. Further the same was affixed in Depot Notice Board also. However, the 2nd respondent did not respond to the Management's action. Therefore the petitioner Management terminated the 2nd respondent from service through order dated 12.01.2012. Thereafter the petitioner Transport Corporation filed an Approval Petition before the 1st respondent under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and the 1st respondent dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

2 nd respondent was unauthorizedly absent and thereafter charge memo was

issued, but no reply was sent and thereafter the Domestic enquiry was conducted. Despite the notice served to the 2nd respondent and the Domestic

enquiry was adjourned for several hearings, he did not appear and thereby the Enquiry Officer passed an ex-parte order on 12.01.2012 stating that charges

against 2nd respondent were proved. Thereafter the petitioner Management issued 2nd show cause notice to the 2nd respondent on 08.11.2011 and the same

was received on 25.11.2022 but no explanation was given. Thereafter, the

petitioner Management terminated the 2nd respondent from his service on 12.01.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner Management filed an application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner Management failed to produce the enquiry proceedings and thereby unable to come to conclusion as to whether the enquiry was conducted after following the principles of natural justice, prima facie case based on the acceptable evidence

and victimization. The Management failed to produce the enquiry proceedings

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

and also the approval petition was not filed either on the same day or within a reasonable time and there is a delay of 11 days and therefore declined to grant approval. In fact, the petitioner Management produced all the documents before

the approval authority, but the approval authority without perusing those documents, erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore the order passed by the approval authority is liable to be quashed.

4.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent was working as Driver in the petitioner's Management. While so, the petitioner Management issued show cause notice for his unauthorized absent and thereafter without following the principles of natural justice and without any notice to the 2nd respondent, they conducted Domestic enquiry and without any prima facie evidence, the Enquiry Officer rendered findings that charges against the 2nd respondent was not proved. Thereafter, the petitioner Management passed order and terminated the 2nd respondent from service. Thereafter, they filed an application before the approval authority for approval under 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, where the approval

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

authority dismissed the approval petition, since the petitioner Management failed to produce the enquiry proceedings. Despite several opportunities given to the petitioner Management, no enquiry proceedings has been produced before the approval authority thereby, the approval authority unable to decide whether prima facie case made out based on the acceptable evidence and whether any principles of natural justice followed. Moreover, there is a delay in filing the approval petition before the approval authority. The termination order was passed on 12.01.2012, but the approval petition was filed on 23.01.2012 therefore the approval authority passed a reasoned order. The approval authority passed an order on 02.09.2016, but the writ petition has been filed in the year 18.10.2022. There is an enormous delay and there is no explanation for the delay. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2025. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the petitioner management failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner before the Labour Officer. Therefore, the 1st respondent correctly declined to grant approval and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

5.This Court heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6.In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of parties

as employer and workmen. According to the petitioner Management, the 2nd respondent was unauthorized absent on 18.11.2009. For the aforesaid misconduct, they have issued charge memo but the 2nd respondent did not give

any explanation, thereby they conducted Domestic enquiry. In the Domestic

enquiry also the 2nd respondent not participated. Therefore, they issued notice to the 2nd respondent and thereafter passed the order of termination from service. According to the 2nd respondent, no notice was served and the Domestic enquiry

was conducted without giving sufficient opportunity to him.

7.This Court perused the records, on perusal it is seen that the Management has not produced the enquiry proceedings of the domestic enquiry before the approval authority. Enquiry proceedings includes the day to day proceedings, recording of evidence and the diary proceedings. After perusal of

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

the enquiry proceedings, the authority can form opinion about the opportunity

given to the delinquent to take part in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner Management filed the approval petition before the 1st respondent where the approval authority declined to grant approval for non-production of the enquiry proceedings. According to the 1st respondent, without enquiry proceedings they

are unable to find out whether principles of natural justice has been followed and whether any prima facie case made out based on the acceptable evidence and there is a victimization. Therefore, unable to hold that the above said procedures have been followed. Apart from that there is a delay in filing the approval petition before the approval authority. The termination order was passed on 12.01.2012, whereas the approval petition was filed on 23.01.2012,

there is a delay of 11 days. Therefore, the approval authority declined to grant approval.

8.Further, the approval authority in the order discussed about the one

month payment. According to the petitioner, they paid one month salary of

Rs.12,950.70/- through cheque and the same was not accepted by the 2nd

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

respondent. But no records were produced by the petitioner for the above said

payment. Therefore, the approval authority declined to grant approval. Therefore it is clear that the petitioner failed to produce the enquiry proceedings

before the approval authority, thereby unable to find out whether any prima facie case made out based on the acceptable evidence and there is a delay in filing the approval petition. Therefore, the approval authority correctly declined to grant the approval. Moreover, the approval authority passed an order on 02.09.2016, but the petitioner filed this writ petition on 18.10.2022, there is a delay of seven years and no explanation for the huge delay, therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. In the mean time, the workmen also attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2025, therefore it is not appropriate to allow this writ petition.

9.In view of the above, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be

granted by this Court and accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

10.Since the matter is pending from the year 2016, the petitioner

management is directed to disburse the retirement benefits to the 2nd respondent

in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

18-07-2025

gbi

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

To

1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour

D.M.S. Complex, IV th Floor, Teynampet, Chennai- 600 006.

2.Thriu.G. Ravi, Ex-Driver, No. 1/142, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Jalladayan Pettai, chennai- 600 100.

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

WP No. 28127 of 2022

P.DHANABAL J.

gbi

WP No. 28127 of 2022

18-07-2025

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 02.09.2016 of the first respondent (Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai), acting as approval authority, in A.P. No.17 of 2012, dismissing the approval petition filed by the petitioner Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 seeking approval of the dismissal of the second respondent; approval was refused inter alia because the enquiry proceedings were not produced, the authority could not assess natural justice/prima facie case/victimisation, the approval petition was filed 11 days after the termination order, and no records supported the claimed one-month salary payment.¶17
Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai (approval authority) · 02.09.2016
Prior proceeding
Second respondent worked as a driver in the petitioner corporation and was unauthorisedly absent from duty on 18.11.2009; a charge memo was issued and explanation called (09.12.2010 per ¶¶30-31), but no explanation was submitted.¶27
Prior proceeding
A domestic enquiry was ordered and held on various dates; the second respondent did not participate; the enquiry officer passed an ex parte order on 12.07.2011 (date as printed).¶32
Prior proceeding
After the enquiry officer's report, the petitioner corporation caused a second show cause notice to the second respondent on 08.11.2011.¶33
Prior proceeding
The second show cause notice was received by the second respondent on 25.11.2022 (date as printed in the judgment) and was also affixed on the Depot Notice Board; the respondent did not respond.¶34
Prior proceeding
As the second respondent did not respond to the Management's action, the petitioner Management terminated him from service by order dated 12.01.2012.¶34
Prior proceeding
The petitioner corporation filed an approval petition before the first respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 seeking approval of the dismissal; the first respondent dismissed the petition.¶34
Prior proceeding
Among the grounds for refusal was the delay in filing the approval petition: the termination order was passed on 12.01.2012 and the approval petition was filed on 23.01.2012, a delay of 11 days.¶67
Prior proceeding
The petitioner claimed to have paid one month salary of Rs.12,950.70/- by cheque, stated to be unaccepted by the second respondent, but produced no records of the payment before the approval authority.¶70