Disposed¶¶32

The Managing Director v. S.Govindaraj

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Certiorari

Madras HC9 Apr 2025WP/9600/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorised absence; conductor; dismissal; disproportionate punishment; backwages denied; reinstatement during pendency; wage parity with juniors; current wages within four weeks; Labour Court Salem award modified; I.D. NO.127 of 2013; TNSTC Salem Division-1; Article 226 certiorari; Madras High Court; M. Dhandapani J.; WP No. 9600 of 2019; WMP No. 10207 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner Corporation to pay current wages to the respondent on par with the juniors within four weeks; respondent held not entitled to any backwages; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP No. 10207 of 2019) closed. ¶¶32

The Managing Director Vs S.Govindaraj — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 9600 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 9600 of 2019

¶7

AND WMP NO. 10207 OF 2019

¶8

The Managing Director

¶9

Tamil Nadu state Transport Corporation (Salem Division-1) Ltd, 12, Ramakrishna Salai, Salem- 636 007 Salem

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

S.Govindaraj S/o.Sadaiyan, Malliyakundham Po,

¶13

Mettur Tk- 636458 Salem Dt, Salem

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D. NO.127 of 2013 and to quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): M/s. M. Aswin, For Respondent(s): M/S.D.LAKSHMIPATHY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 10.04.2018

¶19

passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D. NO.127 of 2013.

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 9600 of 2019

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working with the petitioner Corporation as Conductor since 05.11.2008. The respondent had been unauthorisely absent from 02.02.2012. Due to the same, the petitioner issued charge memo. After enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the the respondent filed industrial dispute the Labour Court and the same was allowed in favour of the respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent was reinstated to service with backwages and hence, this Court may set aside the backwages awarded by the Labour Court and direct the petitioner to fix the wages to the respondent on par with the juniors.

¶24

The learned counsel for the respondent have not raised any objection in this regard.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

Considering the fact that for unauthorised absent, the petitioner has ordered for dismissal, which is highly disproportionate. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent was reinstated to service with

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 9600 of 2019

¶29

backwages, which is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the award as follows:

¶30

The petitioner Corporation is directed to pay the current wages to the respondent on par with the juniors within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶31