Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs The Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 30 July, 2021
W.P.No.34754 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.07.2021
:CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.34754 of 2006 and
W.P.M.P. No.1 of 2006
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd, rep. by its
General Manager, Vellore. .... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Joint Commissioner of Labour,
(Conciliation) DMS compound
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
2. G. Mani .... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the first
Respondent's impugned order made in Approval Petition No.335 of 2003, dated
15.02.2005 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
For Respondents : No appearance for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
W.P.No.34754 of 2006
O R D E R
Petitioner/Transport Corporation has come up with this Writ Petition
challenging the order dated 15.02.2005 passed by the 1st Respondent in Approval
Petition No.335 of 2003 and to quash the same.
2. It is seen that, the 1 st Respondent/Authority has rejected the Approval
Petition filed by the Petitioner/Transport Corporation on the ground that the Petitioner
had not paid one month wages to the Second Respondent/Employee at the time it
dismissed him from his services.
3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation contended that,
the 1st Respondent/Authority failed to consider the gravity of misconduct committed by
the Employee, which indicates that, he issued bogus certificate at the time of
appointment, for which, disciplinary action has been initiated against the Second
Respondent and Domestic Enquiry was conducted and despite notice being served on
the 2nd Respondent, he failed to participate in the Enquiry. He further contended that
considering the gravity of misconduct committed by the Employee, after issuing second
Show Cause Notice and finding that the explanation given by the 2 nd
Respondent/Employee was not satisfactory, the Petitioner imposed the punishment of
dismissal from service to the Second Respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.34754 of 2006
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents
available on record.
5. When the Authority has come to the conclusion that, the domestic enquiry has
not been conducted in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice and that, there
is procedural irregularity, then, it is the duty of the Authority to give an opportunity to
the employer to establish the charges before him in the light of the decision rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of John D' Souza vs. Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation, (2019) 18 SCC 47, followed by the decision of this Court in the case of
Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited vs.
M.Chitti Babu, 2021 (1) LLJ 17 (Mad).
6. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2847 of
2018 dated 06.02.2019, has taken note of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India vs M. Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“..... merely because the respondent-employees
have continued in service for number of years on the
basic of such fraudulently obtained employment orders
cannot create any equity in their favour or any estoppel
against the employer”
7. In the light of the aforesaid Judgment, the Division Bench has confirmed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.34754 of 2006
order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant
therein.
8. Considering the aforesaid Judgments, this Court is of the view that in the case
on hand, short fall of one month wages is not sufficient ground for rejecting the
approval, particularly in the case of fake certificate. Since, the authority has not
decided the issues, this Court has no option except to interfere with the order passed by
the First Respondent.
9. In view of the above, the order dated 13.02.2003 passed by the 1st
Respondent/Authority in Approval Petition No.335 of 2003 is set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the First Respondent for fresh consideration. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
arr
To:
The Joint Commissioner of Labour,
Conciliation) DMS compound
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.34754 of 2006
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
arr/shk
W.P.No.34754 of 2006
30.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
