Madras High Court
The Management vs N.Balasubramanian on 18 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2719 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.17704 of 2021
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,
Rep. By its General Manager,
No.27, New Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam – 612 001. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.N.Balasubramanian
2.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 19.04.2021 made in W.P.No.34812 of 2018.
For Appellant .. Mr.R.Neelakandan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.D.Venkatachalam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order passed by learned
single Judge dated 19 April 2021 in W.P.No.34812 of 2018.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant was heard on 26 October
2021. Learned advocate for the appellant was permitted to address the
Court again on merits today. It is submitted that learned single Judge
was in error in not entertaining the petition of the appellant -
management and the order impugned in the writ petition ought to
have been interfered with.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has further submitted that
the first respondent / workman (driver) had committed so many
misconducts that except terminating his service, there was no other
option and that order was passed. It is submitted that the approval
application was not submitted to the competent authority under the
Act in time, but that itself should not be treated as fatal, in the facts of
the case. It is submitted that this appeal be allowed and the approval
may be treated as having been requested in time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having
considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:
4.1. The first respondent is the workman in the service of the
appellant - Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. His services were
terminated on 01.08.2013, however statutory condition of seeking
simultaneous approval from the competent authority qua that
termination, was not complied with – is the finding of fact recorded by
competent authority so also by learned single Judge.
4.2. Learned single Judge in writ jurisdiction was not inclined to
exercise the discretion to condone that lapse on the part of the
appellant, which was statutorily required. We find that, whether such a
lapse can be condoned by exercising discretion itself is an aspect,
however when learned single Judge has refused to exercise discretion,
according to us, refusal to exercise discretion to condone the statutory
breach on the part of the present appellant – employer can not be
termed to be an error apparent on the face of record, which may call
for interference in this intra-court appeal. On this count alone, this
appeal needs to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. There are additional factors against the present appellant.
Though the termination is dated 01.08.2013 and the same was issued
without complying the statutory requirement, and thus the same can
not be said to hold the field, even now the workman is without any
service and without any wages. Even after two orders against the
appellant management and this appeal having been listed under the
head of 'For Compliance' more than once, the fact remains that even
now the family of the workman is without any financial assistance.
5.1. Attempt on the part of this Court to see to it that the
workman should not be deprived of his dues / wages in absence of any
valid termination order, has not yielded any result so far. Pendency of
this appeal may be a ground available for the management. Let that
ground be not available.
5.2. We also find that concession was also given on behalf of the
workman, since he cannot afford prolong litigation. Since the
management has chosen not to reciprocate it appropriately, we find
that since termination of the workman does not legally hold the field
and further that the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the
management can not be found fault with, the first respondent/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
workman is entitled to all consequential benefits, which need to be
paid to him by the appellant, within a period of eight weeks from
today.
6. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
7. Since a poor workman is on the other end, list the matter 'for
compliance' on 21.01.2022.
(P.U.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
18.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/10
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2719 of 2021
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
