Madras High Court
The Management vs The Special Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 18 June, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.1761 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER
W.A.No.1761 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.13468 of 2025
The Management,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited.,
Cuddalore Region,
Cuddalore District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai.
2.G.Ramachandran ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set
aside the order dated 09.01.2025 made in W.P.No.13628 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Aswin
for Ms.S.Pavithra
For Respondents : Mr.S.Yashwanth,
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for R2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:54 pm )
W.A.No.1761 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
We do not see any merit in the appeal. Challenge is to the order
dated 09.01.2025 made in W.P.No.13628 of 2022. Challenge in the Writ
Petition was by the 2nd respondent to the order of the Labour Court granting
approval to the proposed punishment of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of
the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The case has a chequered history. The 2nd Respondent, who was
working as a Driver in the appellant Management was charged with
negligence and a charge memorandum was issued to him on 02.05.2013 for
causing a fatal accident on 30.12.2012. A domestic enquiry was conducted
and the enquiry officer came to a conclusion that the charges were proved. A
second show cause notice was issued and the proposed punishment of
dismissal was sought to be inflicted.
3. As per the settlement between the Trade Union and the
Management, the Management sought for approval of the proposed
punishment under section 33(2)(b). Originally the Labour Court refused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:54 pm )
approval. The said order was challenged before this Court and this Court
remitted the matter for a fresh consideration. Upon remand the Labour
Court allowed the application for approval on the ground that the acquittal
by the criminal Court of the charges was on benefit of doubt and therefore
there can be an independent enquiry by the Corporation. This order granting
approval was subject matter of challenge in the above Writ Petition.
4. The writ Court after referring to various judgments on this
issue, concluded that unless it is shown that acquittal by the criminal Court
is on benefit of doubt, the charge being based on the very same occurrence,
cannot stand independently after the criminal Court renders a verdict of
acquittal.
5. The learned Single Judge had referred to the judgment of the
criminal Court and found that the acquittal was not one based on benefit of
doubt. Though the phrase “benefit of doubt” is used in the paragraph No.11
of the judgment of the criminal Court, the learned Single Judge found that
the acquittal was based on absence of evidence. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge came to a conclusion that once the criminal Court has acquitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:54 pm )
the workman of negligence in a prosecution under Section 304A of IPC, the
said judgment of the criminal Court has to be given precedence over the
report of the enquiry officer and hence the approval granted cannot be
sustained.
6. In fact, the learned Single Judge had also referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in John D'Souza Vs. Karnataka
State Transport Corporation (order dated 16.10.2019 in Civil Appeal
No.8042 of 2019), where the scope of enquiry in petition under Section
33(2)(b) was expanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. In the light of the above, we do not think there is any need to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails
and it is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is granted twelve (12) weeks
time, from the date of uploading of the copy of this order, to comply with the
order of the learned Single Judge and release the retiral benefits. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:54 pm )
(R.S.M.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
dsa 18.06.2025
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
To
1.The General Manager,
Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited.,
Cuddalore Region,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:54 pm )
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.SURENDER, J.
dsa
18.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 04:23:54 pm )
