Madras High Court
G.Nagendran vs The General Manager on 8 December, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2781 and 2782 of 2016
G.Nagendran ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Limited,
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
2.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Rameshwaram,
Karaikudi Division, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order passed by the third respondent in the proceedings in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
REF:TNSTC/DS/D5/39, dated 18.01.2016, communicated on 04.02.2016 and to
quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to give all
service and attendant benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : No representation
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned order in REF:TNSTC/DS/D5/39, dated
18.01.2016 and consequently to direct the respondents to give all service and
attendant benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law.
2.The petitioner was working in the respondent Corporation. A charge
memo was issued on 02.08.2014, then an enquiry notice was issued on
07.05.2015. Thereafter the petitioner submitted letter dated 09.05.2015,
requesting material documents. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the
enquiry was conducted on 09.05.2015. In the enquiry, the petitioner sought
material documents but, the Enquiry Officer refused to give the documents. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
petitioner submitted another representation on 11.05.2015. Again, an enquiry
notice was issued but, the petitioner refused to appear for the enquiry. In spite of
so many adjournments, dated 16.06.2015, 01.07.2015 and subsequent days, the
petitioner did not appear. Thereafter, the enquiry was concluded and the charges
were held to be proved.
3.The Enquiry Officer's findings were sent to the petitioner on
31.07.2015 and then on 03.12.2015 the petitioner was dismissed from service.
Aggrieved over the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before
the Managing Director of the Corporation. The Managing Director has passed an
order, dated 18.01.2016, and confirmed the punishment.
4.Today i.e., on 08.12.2021, when the Writ Petition was taken up for
hearing, the petitioner was not present. The petitioner was not represented by any
learned Counsel on the earlier occasions also.
5. The respondents have filed counter and heard Mr.D.Sivaraman,
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
6.It is seen that the petitioner has not availed the opportunities granted to
him and has simply stated that he needs documents. The learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has a right to file
petition before the Labour Court and the Appeal filed before the Managing
Director is illegal, since the Managing Director has no appellate power.
7.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a
judgment rendered in Transport and Dock Workers Union and others vs
Mumbai Port Trust and reported in (2011) 2 SCC 575. Since there is an
alternative effective remedy before the Labour Court, which is a fact finding
authority, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is
not permissible.
8.The respondents also relied on a judgment reported in 2004 (3) CTC 1
and also relied on W.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021, wherein it was held that if there is
disputed question of fact, then the appropriate forum is the Labour Court.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
maintainable.
9.Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to
the petitioner to approach the Labour Court. Since this Writ Petition is pending
for so many years, this Court is inclined to condone the delay from 11.12.2016
(the date of filing of this writ petition) until this order, dated 08.12.2021. The
Labour Court shall entertain the petition, if the petition is filed, thereafter decide
the case in accordance with law.
10.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to file petition
before Labour Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
Index : Yes / No 08.12.2021
Internet : Yes
Tmg
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant
concerned.
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.3177 of 2016
08.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
