Madras High Court
The General Manager vs The Special Joint Commissioner Of ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.2588 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.2588 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.20658 of 2025
The General Manager
State Express Transport Corporation
(Tamil Nadu) Ltd.
Pallavan Salai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour
Teynampet
Chennai 600 018
2.A.Kumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set
aside the order passed in W.P.No.1 of 2022 dated 30.04.2025 and allow
the Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.UM.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader - R1
Mr.S.T.Varadarajalu - R2
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
W.A.No.2588 of 2025
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
One of the essential requirements for the Management prior to
filing an approval petition under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, is to pay one month full wages to the workman while
serving him the copy of the punishment order. This essential condition
has been held to be mandatory in several decisions of the Constitutional
Courts, including the decision in Lalla Ram V. DCM Chemical Works,
reported in AIR 1978 (c) 1004.
2.In the instant case, the workman had marked Exhibit R1 before
the Authority, which evidences that he would be entitled to 58% of Grade
Pay along with his basic pay. However, the Management had not paid
this 58% and hence it cannot be termed as payment of one month full
wages. The authority has taken note of this fact and had rejected the
Approval Petition filed by the Management.
3.This apart, the Authority had also taken into consideration that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
the particulars of the enquiry proceedings were not marked before them,
and therefore could not arrive at the conclusion that there was a prima
facie case before the enquiry officer during the disciplinary proceedings.
This aspect is also another essential condition under Section 33(2)(b) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as confirmed in Lalla Ram V. DCM
Chemical Works also.
4.In this background, the Authority has rightly come to the
conclusion that the requirements of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, has not been met and accordingly had rejected the
Approval Petition. The learned single Judge had also appreciated this
aspect and dismissed the Writ Petition. We find no grounds to interfere
with the well considered orders of both the Authority, as well as the
learned Single Judge.
5.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
kas
6.In view of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the Management
shall forthwith disburse all the retirement and pensionary benefits to the
2nd respondent, at least within a period of four (4) weeks, from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The Management is also at liberty to
deduct the workman's contribution towards the Provident Fund out of the
retirement benefits.
[M.S.R, J.] [R.S.V, J.]
19.09.2025
kas
Index: Yes / No
Neutral Citation
Speaking / Non Speaking
To.
1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour
Teynampet
Chennai 600 018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 08:41:58 pm )
