Madras High Court
The Management vs J. Stalin on 18 June, 2025
W.P. No.10278 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P. No.10278 of 2022
and W.M.P. No.9989 of 2022
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,
Nagapattinam Region,
140, Public Office Road,
Vellipalayam, Nagapattinam - 611 101. .. Petitioner
vs.
1. J. Stalin
2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. .. Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the 2nd
respondent in Approval Petition No.127 of 2019 and quash the same,
consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to approve the order of the petitioner
dated 30.09.2019 dismissing the 1st respondent from service.
For Petitioner : Mr.C. Senapathi
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
W.P. No.10278 of 2022
For Respondent : Mr. R. Singaravelan, Senior Counsel
for M/s. V. Ambika [for R1]
Mr. E.P. Senniyangiri [for R2]
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Management to
quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Approval Petition No.127 of
2019 dated 07.01.2022.
2. The short facts necessary to dispose the Writ petition are as
follows:-
The respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner
Management. While so, he was absented from duty for 273 days without any
leave letter. Therefore, the 1st respondent was issued a Charge Memo, for
which, he did not submit his reply. Therefore the petitioner Management
decided to conduct enquiry, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the
petitioner Management and a domestic enquiry was conducted and the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report that the charges against the 1st
respondent were proved. Thereafter, a 2nd Show Cause Notice dated
20.06.2019 was issued after furnishing copy of the enquiry report to the 1st
respondent and the same was replied by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
order of dismissal was passed on 30.09.2019 against the 1st respondent.
Further, the petitioner Management filed a petition under Section 33(2)(b) of
the Industrial Disputes Act before the 2nd respondent for getting approval of
the dismissal order passed in A.P. No.127 of 2019 and the same was
dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ petition has been
filed by the Management.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management
would submit that the 1st respondent was working as a Conductor in the
petitioner Management and he was unauthorizedly absented for 273 days
without any leave letter. The above said misconduct is against the Standing
Orders 24A, 6A and 40 of the petitioner Corporation. Therefore, a Charge
Memo was issued to the 1st respondent and the 1st respndent did not submit
any reply. The petitioner Management decided to conduct an enquiry by
appointing an Enquiry Officer and a domestic enquiry was conducted by
following the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer rendered
the findings that charges against the delinquent were proved and thereafter,
the Disciplinary Authority, after accepting the enquiry report, issued a Show
Cause Notice and thereafter, passed an order of dismissal dated 30.09.2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
against the 1st respondent. The copy of the order was served to the 1st
respondent along with cheque bearing No.247717 dated 30.09.2019 for a sum
of Rs.13,299/- as one month salary. Thereafter, the petitioner Management
filed a petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before
the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, without following the guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical
Works reported in AIR 1978(C) 1004, erroneously held that the principles
of natural justices were not followed in the Disciplinary Proceedings and no
prima facie case has been established through the acceptable evidence.
Whereas the 1st respondent was given opportunity in the Disciplinary
proceedings and only after affording opportunity to the 1st respondent, the
domestic enquiry was conducted. Whereas the 2nd respondent erroneously
dismissed the petition and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit
that the 1st respondent was issued a Charge Memo and no sufficient
opportunity was given during the disciplinary enquiry and there is no prima
facie case established through acceptable evidence, thereby, the 2nd
respondent has correctly declined to grant permission and the petitioner failed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
to produce the enquiry report before the 2nd respondent, despite sufficient
opportunity given to them. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly
dismissed the approval petition filed by the petitioner management and the
present Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the entire materials
available on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner Management initiated
disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent and the Enquiry Officer
was appointed and conducted a domestic enquiry and rendered findings that
the charges against the 1st respondent were proved. In the disciplinary
proceedings, the 1st erspondent denied the charges levelled against him.
According to the 1st respondent, false complaint has been lodged against him,
as he was suffering from health issues and he was hospitalized, he was not
able to inform the same to the Management in right time and his wife was also
in the hospital along with him to take care and no sufficient opportunity was
given to him to cross examine the witnesses. The Approval authority in the
order framed five points that (i) whether a proper domestic enquiry in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
accordance with the relevant rules / standing orders and principle of natural
justice has been held?; (ii) whether a prima facie case has been established
in the domestic enquiry based on the legally acceptable evidence?; (iii)
whether the employer had come to a bonafide conclusion that the employee
was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice?; (iv)
whether the employer has paid or offered to pay wages for one month to the
employee?; and (v) whether the employer has simulatneously or within such
reasonably short time as to form part of the same transaction applied to the
authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of
the action taken by him?. and rendered findings that no sufficient opportunity
was given to the 1st respondent to adduce evidence on his side and no records
were produced by the Management to show that sufficient opportunity was
given to the 1st respondent. Moreover, the enquiry report has not been
furnished by the 2nd respondent Authority to ascertain whether principles of
natural justice has been followed in the disciplinary proceedings and whether
there is prima facie case based o the acceptable evidence. No enquiry report
has been submitted, despite sufficiet opportunities were given to the petitioner
Management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
7. As per the judgment of Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works
reported in AIR 1978 (C) 1004, while dealing with the approval petitions, the
Tribunal has to see whether principles of natural justice has been followed in
the disciplinary proceedings, whether any prima facie case is made out based
on the acceptable evidence, whether the dismissal of service is on
victimization, whether one month salary was paid to the workman and also
whether the approval petition was filed simultaneously along with the
dismissal order. In order to ascertain whether prima facie case is made out
based on the acceptable evidence, the Authority has to verify the enquiry
report and the proceedings. But, in this case, the petitioner has not produced
the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and already ample chances were
given to the petitioner to produce the enquiry report. But no enquiry report
has been furnished before the 2nd respondent Authority. Therefore, the
Approval Authority had correctly come to a conclusion that without enquiry
report, he was unable to ascertain whether any prima facie case is made out
based on the acceptable evidence and no opportunity was given to the 1st
respondent to adduce evidence on his side. The above reasons stated by the
Approval Authority in rejecting the approval petition are genuine and
acceptable. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is in order and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
it does not warrant interference.
8. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the
present Writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also
closed.
18.06.2025
[2/2]
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
mjs
To
The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai-6.
P. DHANABAL, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
mjs
18.06.2025
[2/2]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 08:37:52 pm )
