Madras High Court
The Management vs K.Jagan Mohan on 6 September, 2024
W.P.No. 12429 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.12429 of 2024 and
W.M.P.No.13566 of 2024
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Salai,
Salem - 636 007.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Jagan Mohan
2.The Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai - 6. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the second respondent
in Approval Petition No.112 of 2020 and quash the same and
consequently, direct the second respondent to approve the order of the
petitioner dated 17.08.2020 dismissing the first respondent from service.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, GA for R2
Mr.V.Ajoy Khose for R1
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 12429 of 2024
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the
appropriate authority passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act made in A.P.No.112 of 2020 by denying the approval for
punishment of dismissal imposed on the first respondent workman.
2. Heard Mr.K.Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for R2 and Mr.V.Ajoy
Khose, learned counsel for R1
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation submitted
that the petitioner is a Corporation in which the first respondent was
working as a Conductor. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against
him after arriving at a finding that the charges against the workman was
proved, the petitioner Management has imposed the punishment of
dismissal. When the punishment of dismissal was sent to the second
respondent for approval, the second respondent has denied the approval
by holding that the essential conditions laid down by the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Supreme Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. D.C.M.Chemical Works
Ltd., and Another, reported in (1978) 3 SCC 1, were not complied. As
per the above judgment, the following parameters have to be complied in
order to get approval for the punishment of dismissal,
"12. The position that emerges from the above
quoted decisions of this Court may be stated thus : In
proceedings under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the
jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal is confined to the
enquiry as to (i) whether a proper domestic enquiry in
accordance with the relevant rules/Standing Orders and
principles of natural justice has been held; (ii) whether a
prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence
adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out; (iii)
whether the employer had come to a bona fide
conclusion that the employee was guilty and the
dismissal did not amount to unfair tabour practice and
was not intended to victimise the employee regard being
had to the position settled by the decisions of this Court
in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co, v. Ram Probesh Singh(1),
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Kumar(2),
Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their
Workmen(3), Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre &
Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Management &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ors(4), and Eastern Electric and Trading Co. v. Baldev
Lal(5) that though generally speaking the award of
punishment for misconduct under the Standing Orders is
a matter for the management to decide and the Tribunal
is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of
the punishment or whether it is excessive or too severe
yet an inference of mala fides may in certain cases be
drawn from the imposition of unduly harsh, severe,
unconscionable or shockingly disproportionate
punishment; (iv) whether the employer has paid or
offered to pay wages for one month to the employee and
(v) whether the employer has simultaneously or within
such reasonably short time as to form part of the game
transaction applied to the authority before which the
main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the
action taken by him. If these conditions are satisfied, the
Industrial Tribunal would grant the approval which
would relate back to the date from which the employer
had ordered the dismissal. If however, the domestic
enquiry suffers from any defect or infirmity, the tabour
authority will have to find out on its own assessment of
the evidence adduced before it whether there was
justification for dismissal and if it so finds it will grant
approval of the order of dismissal which would also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
relate back to the date when the order was passed
provided the employer had paid or offered to pay wages
for one month to the employee and the employer had
within the time indicated above applied to the authority
before which the main industrial dispute is pending for
approval of the action taken by him."
4. The second respondent had also quoted five points of the above
judgment, but he has chosen to render a finding that in the disciplinary
action, the enquiry has not been conducted in compliance of the
principles of natural justice and that there is no prima facie evidence
available on record in order to prove the guilt of the first respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above
order of the second respondent is perverse and has been passed without
considering the essential aspects of the matter. He further submitted that
though the first respondent had undergone surgery, he did not choose to
return duty after he got recovered. The repeated notices sent to the first
respondent were managed to be returned as though the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was not available in the address. But the second respondent in his order
has observed that in view of the injury sustained by the second
respondent, he was not able to perform the functions of the conductor.
6. The first respondent has submitted a request to consider his
health condition and allow him to undertake light duty. The first
respondent was also referred to medical examination by appearing
himself before the Medical Board at Kumaramangalam Medical College.
The appropriate authority has recorded in the impugned order that the
Management also did not deny the order and did not produce any
materials to show that such step has not been taken. Only after making all
these observations, the second respondent has arrived at a conclusion that
the dismissal of the first respondent is not supported with reliable
evidence and a prima facie case for dismissal has not been made out.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court
has overlooked the fact that the first respondent continued to evade
notice despite his family members were present. But the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent authority has dealt the acceptability of the evidence available
on the side of the Management in a comprehensive manner and arrived at
a conclusion that prima facie case for dismissal has not been established.
Since some of the essential conditions contemplated under Lalla Ram's
case has not been observed, the second respondent had chosen to deny
the approval. In view of the above stated reasons, I find no reason for
interference and no acceptable grounds has been raised by the petitioner.
8. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes /No 06.09.2024
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
To
The Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 6.
W.P.No.12429 of 2024 and
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
