Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Management vs The Special Deputy Commissioner ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15360 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 15360 Mad
Judgement Date : 30 July, 2021

Madras High Court
The Management vs The Special Deputy Commissioner ... on 30 July, 2021
                                                                            W.P.No.32770 of 2015

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 30.07.2021

                                                     CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

                                              W.P.No.32770 of 2015
                                              and MP.No.1 of 2015
                 The Management
                 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                 (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
                 27, Pugaivandi Nillai New Salai,
                 Kumbakonam 612 001
                 Rep. by its
                 General Manager                                                  ... Petitioner
                                                   -vs-

                 1. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour
                    DMS Compound, Chennai.

                 2. V.Sarnathan                                                ... Respondents
                 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
                 for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the order
                 passed by the 1st respondent in A.P.No.495 of 2011 dated 27.06.2013 and to
                 quash the same as illegal.



                          For Petitioner         :     Mr.D.Venkatachalam

                          For R2                 :     Mr.V.Ajay Khose

                                                     *****



                 Page No.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis   of 4
                                                                                W.P.No.32770 of 2015

                                                    ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order dated

27.06.2013 passed by the 1st respondent in A.P.No.495 of 2011, in and by

which the order of dismissal passed by the Petitioner/Management was

refused to be approved.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material

documents available on record.

3. The Authority rejected the Approval Petition filed by the Petitioner /

Management in A.P.No.495 of 2011 on the ground that the domestic enquiry

was not conducted properly and was not in accordance with the principles of

natural justice and that, there is victimization.

4. Once the domestic enquiry has been held to be not fair and proper, it

is open to the Employer to adduce fresh evidence in the light of the judgment

of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Fire Stone Tyre Rubber

Company v. Management, reported in 1973 (1) LLJ 78 (equivalent (1973) 1

SCC 813, provided there is a plea taken by the Management in the counter

Page No.2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 4 W.P.No.32770 of 2015

affidavit that they must be given an opportunity to let in evidence. The Apex

Court in a recent judgment in the case of John D'Souza vs. Karnataka State

Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47, which has been

followed by this Court in the case of Management, Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Kancheepuram Region,

Kancheepuram vs. M.Chitti Babu (deceased) and others, reported in 2021-

I-LLJ-17 (Mad), reiterated that once the domestic enquiry is vitiated, the

employer must be given an opportunity to establish the charges. In Shankar

Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and others, reported in (1979) 3

SCC 371, the Apex Court held that there is no need for the Labour Court or

Tribunal to remind the Management as to what they should do.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the employee in this case

has already attained the age of superannuation. That apart, even assuming

that the finding of victimisation is going to be answered in favour of the

employee, as the employee did not seek any evidence to establish the

charges, the decision of the Authority in rejecting the Approval Petition is

perfectly valid. Hence, I find that there is no reason whatsoever to interfere

with the order of the Authority concerned.

Page No.3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 4 W.P.No.32770 of 2015

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

dpq

6. In the result, this Writ petition is dismissed. Since the order passed

by the Authority in rejecting the Approval Petition has been upheld, the

Employee / 2nd Respondent is deemed to be in service in the light of the

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel

Company Ltd., vs. G.Ramakrishnan Ayyar, reported in 1950 LLJ 1043 and

he is entitled to wages from the date of rejection of the Approval Petition.

The Petitioner / Management / Employer is directed to settle the entire

terminal benefits, due to the Employee, within a period of four (4) months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently

connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

30.07.2021 dpq Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order

To:

The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour DMS Compound, Chennai.

W.P.No.32770 of 2015

Page No.4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 4

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter