Madras High Court
The General Manager vs The Special Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 18 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.4321 of 2020
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited,
Bye-Pass Road,
District Collector Office Post,
Dindigul-624 004. ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
O/o.Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai-600 006.
2.P.Jeyasingh Herald ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 08.01.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.19291 of 2014.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 07:10:16 pm )
W.A(MD)No.748 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthilkumaraiah
For R1 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.G.M.Xavier
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)
The writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.19291 of 2014 has filed
the present writ appeal challenging the dismissal of the writ petition.
2. The second respondent herein, who was employed as a
driver in the appellant transport corporation, was dismissed from service
on 14.02.2011. The appellant had presented an application under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval for such
dismissal. The authority by his order dated 27.12.2012 rejected the said
request on the ground that one month salary as contemplated under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been paid to the
workman, the Management has not established their case on the basis of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 07:10:16 pm )
the acceptable evidence and the Management has not placed any material
record to establish that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner
aftering providing opportunity to the workman. The said order was put
to challenge by the Management in the above writ petition.
3. The Writ Court, after considering the submission made on
either side, had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the reasons
assigned by the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act are
sustainable in the eye of law and there is a long time gap between the
date of impugned order and the filing of the writ petition. Challenging
the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the Management.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
Management should have been provided with an opportunity to pay the
one month salary and should have been granted another opportunity for
production of the records relating to the enquiry proceedings. Hence, he
seeks for setting aside the order of the authority under the Industrial
Dispute Act and for remitting the matter back to the authority for
marking those documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 07:10:16 pm )
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent /
workman submitted that admittedly, one month salary has not been paid
to the workman as contemplated under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Management has failed to convince the authority with
regard to the statutory requirements and hence, they cannot be granted a
second opportunity to fill up the lacuna.
6. We have considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
second respondent, admittedly, one month salary has not been paid as
contemplated under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act
before passing an order of dismissal. The Management has not even
filed the enquiry report or the record of enquiry proceedings before the
authority to establish that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner
after providing reasonable opportunity to the workman. After the
approval application was rejected, the writ petition came to be filed after
a period of two years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 07:10:16 pm )
8. In view of the above, the Writ Court has rightly dismissed
the writ petition. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of
the Writ Court and there are no merits in the writ appeal, the writ appeal
is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
18.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
am
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai-600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 07:10:16 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
am
ORDER MADE IN
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 07:10:16 pm )
