Madras High Court

The Management vs N. Karthikeyan on 19 June, 2025

Author: P.T. Asha

Bench: P.T. Asha

                                                                                        W.P.No.2833 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        Dated :19.06.2025

                                                               CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

                                                   W.P.No.2833 of 2023
                                                          and
                                                  W.M.P No. 2953 of 2023

                        The Management,
                        Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kovai Division) Limited,
                        No.37, Mettupalayam Road,
                        Coimbatore – 640 043.                           ... Petitioner

                                                                 vs-

                             1. N. Karthikeyan
                                Conductor, C22588
                                Ukkadam -2 Branch,
                                364/112, Hospital Street,
                                Kavunthapadi,
                                Erode District

                             2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
                                DMS Complex,
                                Chennai                                                   ...Respondents

                        Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                        India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A.P.
                        No. 194 of 2020 on file of the 2nd Respondent dated 29.03.2022 and
                        quash the same.


                                      For Petitioner                 : Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan

                        1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )
                                                                                           W.P.No.2833 of 2023


                                        For Respondent-1                : Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan

                                                                   ORDER

The Transport Corporation has filed the above Writ Petition

challenging the dismissal of their application seeking an approval of the

order of termination passed against the 1st respondent.

2. The facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ

petition are as follows:

(i) The 1st respondent had joined the services of the petitioner-

Corporation as a daily wage Conductor on 30.01.2010. While he was on

duty on 28.09.2018 in a bus bearing TN38 N 1962 travelling between

Ukkadam and Somanur, an inspection had taken place at Kozhipannai at

around 9.55am. The checking inspectors found that, as per the ticket

book and trip sheet, the total number of passengers was 27, but, however

the tickets were issued only for 24 passengers. When questioned, the 1st

respondent was not able to give a proper response. Thereafter, when the

Checking Inspector had checked each of the passengers, they came to

know that out of the 6 passengers who were travelling in a group, 4

passengers had purchased the tickets and 2 passengers had not purchased

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

the tickets and they were therefore fined. One of these passengers had

boarded the bus at Thennapalayam Junction and paid Rs.20/- for a ticket

to Kanniyur. The 1st respondent had returned the balance of Rs.5/- but,

however did not issue the ticket. The 1st respondent admitted the same

and therafter, statements were recorded from the persons present at the

time of inspection.

(ii) The petitioner would further submit that the 1st respondent was

issued with a Charge Memo under Rule 14(d)(ab) of the Board Standing

orders of the petitioner-Corporation. The 1st respondent had received

the Carge Memo on 29.09.2018 and submitted his reply on 15.10.2018.

Since the explanation was not satisfactory, the petitioner ordered a

domestic Enquiry. The 1st respondent was issued with notice and he

had appeared for the enquiry. The 1st respondent did not choose to

cross examine the Management witness and he had made an

endorsement that he has no witnesses to be examined. Thereafter, after

giving sufficient opportunity and following the principles of natural

justice, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report holding that all

charges were proved. After receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

had issued the 1st respondent a notice calling upon him to submit his

objection to the enquiry officer's report. However, no objections were

submitted. To the second show cause notice also, the petitoner had not

submitted any objections. The petitioner, also taking into account the

earlier misdemeanours, had proceeded to terminate him from service.

Thereafter, the dismissal order was submitted along with Form- D

before the 2nd respondent for approval in A.P.No.194 of 2020. The 2nd

respondent had issued a notice to the 1st respondent and the 1st

respondent had submitted his objections. Though the 1st respondent had

stated that these acts had been done only because of his family need, the

admission has not been taken note of by the same and the 2nd respondent

observed that the 1st respondent was not given an opportunity to let in

evidence to prove his case and therefore, the issue could not decided on

merits and had rejected the approval petition. Challenging the same, the

petitioner is before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

observation of the authority that opportunity was not given to the 1st

respondent is not correct since the workman had deposed that he had

been given sufficient opportunities. Therefore, the findings of the

Labour Court that the enquiry has not been properly conducted is per se

erroneous and that the petitioner has failed to prove the charges against

the 1st respondent is totally wrong. Had the 2nd respondent come to the

conclusion that the enquiry has not been properly conducted then, he

ought to have remanded the matter back to the authority in order to

permit the parties to adduce evidence. He would rely upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47 [John

D'Souza Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation].

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit

that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the evidence let in by

the petitioner himself and has come to the conclusion that they have not

prima facie proved the charges levelled against him. Therefore, in the

light of the above, the order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be

found fault with it. That apart, he would submit that in order to seek for

remand, there must be a plea by the petitioner-Management seeking an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

opportunity to establish the charge. In support of the said argument, he

would rely upon an unreported judgment in W.P.No.31140 of 2018[The

Management vs P.Velu and another] where the learned Judge has held

as follows. In paragraph 7, it has been stated as follows:

"7. This Court makes it clear that, if the employer had not taken any plea, they need not be given an opportunity to establish the charges. In case, the domestic enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, the plea that, the employer must be given an opportunity to establish the charges should have been taken at the earliest stage and it cannot be entertained at a later stage."

5. Heard Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan, learned counsel appearing

for the 2nd respondent.

6. The 2nd respondent has come to the conclusion that the enquiry

has not been properly conducted and the document which has been

produced by the petitioner, namely the alleged deposition of the 1st

respondent, does not inspire the confidence of this Court. In the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

judgment reported in (2019) 18 SCC 47 cited supra, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 30 as follows:

"30. This Court in the above cited decisions has, in no uncertain terms, divided the scope of enquiry by the Labour Court/Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) in two phases. Firstly, the Labour Court/Tribunal will consider as to whether or not a prima facie case for discharge or dismissal is made out on the basis of the domestic enquiry if such enquiry does not suffer from any defect, namely, it has not been held in violation of principles of natural justice and the conclusion arrived at by the employer is bona fide or that there was no unfair labour practice or victimisation of the workman. This entire exercise has to be undertaken by the Labour Court/Tribunal on examination of the record of enquiry and nothing more. In the event where no defect is detected, the approval must follow. The second stage comes when the Labour Court/Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry suffers from one orthe other legal ailment. In that case, the Labour Court/Tribunal shall permit the parties to adduce their respective evidence and on appraisal thereof the Labour Court/Tribunal shall conclude its enquiry whether the discharge or any other punishment including dismissal was justified. That is the precise

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

ratio – decendi of the decisions of this Court in (i) Punjab National Bank, (ii) Mysore Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) Lalla Ram’s cases (supra)."

The learned Judges had observed that where the Labour Court or

Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry suffers

from a legal ailment, then it must permit the parties to adduce their

respective evidence. To permit such an opportunity, the learned Judges

would go on to state in paragraph 33 as follows:

"33. It, thus, stands out that though the Labour

Court or the Tribunal while exercising their

jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) are empowered to

permit the parties to lead evidence in respect of the

legality and propriety of the domestic enquiry held into

the misconduct of a workman, such evidence would be

taken into consideration by the Labour Court or the

Tribunal only if it is found that the domestic enquiry

conducted by the Management on the scale that the

standard of proof required therein can be

`preponderance of probability’ and not a `proof beyond

all reasonable doubts’ suffers from inherent defects or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

is violative of principles of natural justice. In other

words, the Labour Court or the Tribunal cannot

without first examining the material led in the domestic

enquiry jump to a conclusion and mechanically permit

the parties to lead evidence as if it is an essential

procedural part of the enquiry to be held under Section

33(2)(b) of the Act."

In the case on hand, the 2nd respondent has clearly found that an

opportunity has not been provided to the 1st respondent and that apart, on

considering the evidence, has come to the conclusion that a prima facie

case has not been made out. Therefore, the petitioner could be given

another opportunity for adducing evidence. The learned Single Judge of

this Court, in the judgement cited supra, has stated that such an

opportunity would be given only if it is asked for in the approval

petition. In the approval petition, it has been stated in paragraph 12 as

follows:

"bjhHpyhsh; jdpj;Jiz Mizah;. brd;id mth;fs; kDjhuuhy; elj;jg;gl;Ls;s cs;sf tprhuiz. ,aw;if epajpnfhl;ghl;od;go kDjhuh; elf;ftpy;iy vd;W

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

fUjpdhnyh my;yJ tprhuiz FiwghL cilaJ vd;W ,e;j kDtpd; tprhuizapd;nghJ fUjpdhnyh.

kDjhuUf;F j';fsJ rhl;rpa';fis bjhHpyhsh;

jdpj;Jiz Mizah; Kd; Fw;wr;rhl;Lf; Fwpg;ghizapy; fz;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpj;J tprhupf;f tha;g;gspf;FkhW gpuhh;j;jpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; gpw;fhyj;jpy; ntW tpgu';fs; fpilf;fg;bgwpd; mitfis rkh;g;gpj;jplt[k; kDjhuh; mDkjp nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpwhh;/ midj;J ,aw;if epajpfisa[k; filgpoj;J midj;J re;jh;g;g';fSk; nkw;go vjph;kDjhuUf;F tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W bjhHpy; jfuhW rl;lk; 1947 gphpt[ 33 cl;gphpt[ (2) cggphpt[ (b) d;go epge;jidfs; KGtJk; filgpof;fg;gl;Ls;sd vd;Wk;. nkw;go kDjhuh; kPz;Lk; gpuhh;j;jid bra;J vjph;kDjhuh;

                                  kPJ    vLf;fg;gl;l           eltof;ifia                   xg;g[jy;   bra;a
                                  ntz;Lfpwhh;/"

Therefore, taking into account the fact that the 2nd respondent has come

to the conclusion that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the

petitioner-Management has not prima facie proved the charges against

the 1st respondent-workman and has also sought permission to adduce

the evidence afresh, the matter is remitted back to the 2 nd respondent for

fresh consideration. Both parties shall adduce their evidence before the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:58 am )

Labour Court and the Labour Court shall endeavour to dispose of the

case within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.06.2025