Madras High Court
The Management vs C.Louis on 20 September, 2024
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.21957 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.21957 of 2019
W.P.No.22529 of 2019
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Limited,
Bharathipuram, Salem Road,
Dharmapuri - 5. ... Petitioner
versus
1.C.Louis
2.Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai - 6. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the second respondent, in A.P.No.268 of
2014 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Jaikumar
for M/s.T.Fenn Walter Associates
For Respondent No.2 : M/s.M.Jayanthy
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.21957 of 2019
W.P.No.5050 of 2019
C.Louis ... Petitioner
versus
The Management of
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Barathi Puram, Dharmapuri Region,
Salem Main Road,
Dharmapuri - 5. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to reinstate
the petitioner in service and continuity of service with back wages and all
other attendant benefits with 12% interest from the date of dismissal to till
the date of realization of amount in pursuant to the order passed by the
Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai dated 23.08.2017 in
A.P.No.268 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jaikumar
for M/s.T.Fenn Walter Associates
For Respondent : Mr.M.Aswin
Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the
same, these Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed by this
common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
2. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order of
the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, dated 23.08.2017 in
A.P.No.268 of 2014 and direct the management to reinstate the workman in
service with continuity of service along with back wages and all other
attendant benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite
the petitioner management has complied all the conditions laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalla Ram Vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical
reported in 1978 AIR (SC) 1004, the authority concerned did not appreciate
the matter in a right perspective and had chosen to reject the approval.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Special
Joint Commissioner of Labour, has dealt all the 5 points enlisted in the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Lalla Ram's case. It
has given a finding that prima facie case for dismissal has not been proved
and the enquiry has not been conducted in compliance of the principles of
natural justice and the workman was victimised due to dismissal and there
was a shortfall in paying one month salary at the time of dismissal. Having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
found the above points against the petitioner management, the request for
approval was disallowed.
5. The other condition as to the payment of one month salary is
concerned, the petitioner management cannot say anything other than the
compliance of the compulsory payment. There is no dispute that the
petitioner management had paid a sum of Rs.23,450/- through cheque on
17.10.2014 to the first respondent workman and that was received by him.
But the contention of the first respondent workman is that the amount of
Rs.23,450/- does not represent the whole of the salary payable to him at the
relevant point of time in view of the raised Dearness Allowance and in this
regard, Government Order has been issued in G.O.No.245, Finance
(Allowances) Department, dated 10.10.2014.
6. The learned approval authority has made a specific observation
that the first respondent workman has produced the Government Order in
G.O.No.245, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 10.10.2014 in order
to show that he is entitled to the enhanced Dearness Allowance. The
petitioner management did not produce any materials to show that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
amount is inclusive of the enhanced Dearness Allowance as per the
Government Order issued on 10.10.2014.
7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner management
submitted that the said order has come into effect only on 17.10.2014 and
the Board has passed a resolution on 18.10.2014 and hence, it is wrong on
the part of the authority concerned to arrive at a conclusion that the
condition of paying one month salary was not complied.
8. Whatever may be the case, unless the petitioner produces the
relevant materials before the appropriate authority, the authority concerned
cannot be expected to appreciate the contentions now made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. So, it cannot be the argument of the petitioner
that the appropriate authority should seek further details and only then the
petitioner was obliged to produce any additional documents as proof of
payment of one month salary as prescribed under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9. There are other conditions which are also not been complied by
the petitioner and hence, the approval was not given, which in my opinion,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
the appropriate authority has properly dealt the approval petition and
appraised whether the conditions have been properly complied and on
coming to a conclusion that the conditions were not complied, they have
chosen to dismiss the approval petition which in my opinion, does not suffer
from any infirmity for interference.
10. As the petitioner workman is not in service consequent to the
dismissal of the approval petition in A.P.No.268 of 2014, the respondent
management is directed to reinstate the petitioner workman into service
along with backwages and other attendant benefits, within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In the result, W.P.No.22529 of 2019 is dismissed and
W.P.No.5050 of 2019 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.09.2024
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai - 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
R.N.MANJULA, J.
sri
W.P.Nos.22529 and 5050 of 2019
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
