Madras High Court
The General Manager vs K.Murugan on 19 October, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.616 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.No.616 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.4334 of 2024
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Region,
Ponnerikarai,
Bangalor Highways, Kancheepuram. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.K.Murugan
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound, Chennai. … Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order dated 23.08.2023
made in W.P.No.22703 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mrs.S.Pavithra
Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu (for R1)
Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh (for R2)
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.A.No.616 of 2024
JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)
This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23.08.2023 made in
W.P.No.22703 of 2017.
2. On the strength of proven charges, the 1st respondent herein was
removed from service through an order dated 23.02.2021, by the
Transport Corporation. However since certain conciliation proceedings
were pending, an approval Petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], was
filed to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, in A.P.No.111 of
2012, which came to be rejected on 06.06.2014, predominantly on the
ground that the application seeking for approval was belatedly filed after
32 days.
3. Challenging the same, the Transport Corporation has preferred
the writ petition in W.P.No.22703 of 2017, which came to be rejected on
23.08.2023 by a learned Single Judge of this Court predominantly
placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ram vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., [AIR 1978 SC
1004]. The order of the learned Single Judge is assailed in the present
Intra Court Appeal.
4. Heard Mrs.S.Pavithra, learned standing counsel for the appellant
/ Transport Corporation, as well as Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel
for the 1st respondent/workman and Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned
Additional Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent/Authority.
5. The proviso to Section 33(2) of the Act mandates two
preconditions before discharging or dismissing any workman during the
pendency of any conciliation proceeding pending before a Conciliation
Officer, Labour Court, etc. The first precondition is that the employer is
bound to pay one month wages at the time of discharge or dismissal and
secondly, the employer is mandated to file an application to the authority
before which the conciliation is pending, seeking for approval of the
action taken by them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Lalla Ram's case
(supra), as well as in several other decisions, has held that the approval
application mandated under the proviso to Section 33(2) of the Act
requires to be filed simultaneously with the order of dismissal or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
discharge and not later.
6. Admittedly the approval petition under Section 33 (2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, has been filed belatedly, after 32 days from the
date of dismissal, which is legally impermissible. Thus, we do not find
any illegality or any other infirmity in the findings of the learned Single
Judge.
7. Accordingly this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [M.J.R., J]
19.10.2024
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
ars
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,
ars
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
