Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 38
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division Ltd., By its Managing Director
Versus
The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) & Another
W.P.No.3296 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007
Decided On :Decided on: 03-01-2012
For the Petitioner - S. Ravi for M/s. Gupta and Ravi, Advocates.
For the Respondents - R1 - M. Digvijaya Pandian, R2 - G. Purushothaman, Advocates.
The judgment established the importance of following principles of natural justice and the correct interpretation of procedural requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Dismissal of Employee - Section 33(2)(b) - Section 17-B - Section 2-A(2)
Fact of the Case:
The State owned Transport Corporation filed a writ petition to challenge the refusal of approval for the dismissal of an employee during conciliation proceedings. The employee was dismissed for misappropriating ticket fares.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority's decision was illegal as it wrongly concluded that the employee was denied a reasonable opportunity, and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of approval for dismissal, compliance with procedural requirements, and the denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority's finding on the denial of reasonable opportunity was incorrect, citing principles of natural justice and Supreme Court precedents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with no order as to costs. The court clarified that its findings were prima facie and would not affect any future dispute raised by the employee.
1. The writ petition is filed by the State owned Transport Corporation having its headquarters at Kumbakonam. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge an order passed by the first respondent viz., Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai in Approval Petition No.156 of 2004. By the aforesaid order, the first respondent, who is an authority to grant approval for any dismissal made during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings refused to accord his approval by an order dated 16.02.2006. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 01.02.2007. Pending the writ petition, in the application for interim injunction, only notice was ordered. Subsequently, the second respondent workman filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2009 seeking direction to pay last drawn wages in terms of the principles enshrined behind Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court by an order dated 07.07.2009 directed the payment of monthly wages from the date of the writ petition. It is now admitted by both sides that the order has been complied with.
3. In the mean while, when the matter came up on 22.07.2010, the issue was referred to resolution by the Lok Adalat and since no compromise was possible, the matter has come back once again before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Mr.Ravi for M/s.Gupta and Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Purushothaman, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.M.Digvijaya Pandian, learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour.
5. It is seen from the records that the second respondent was employed as a Conductor and he was initially posted at Nagapattinam Branch. On 25.11.2003, when he was plying in the route between Nagore and Ramanathapuram, the bus was stopped at Kollukkadu by the checking staff and it was found that the petitioner had collected Rs.150/- from a group of three passengers who were travellling from Pattukottai to Ramanathapuram at the rate of Rs.42/- per ticket and returned Rs.24/- as balance amount and issued only two tickets to the passengers, thereby misappropriated the one ticket amount of Rs.42/-.
6. On the basis of the report given by the checking staff, a charge memo was framed against the second respondent vide charge memo dated 27.12.2003. Before issuing charge memo, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.12.2003. Subsequently, the suspension was revoked on 16.12.2003. The petitioner sent a representation dated 05.01.2004 seeking for copies of the basic report which formed the basis of the charge memo. In response to the request, the Deputy Manager by a reply dated 09.01.2004 stated that the complaint given by the passenger is not the basic report and it is only an evidence in support of the charge sheet. Therefore, such copies of report can be perused before the enquiry and he was directed to give his explanation.
The petitioner, thereafter gave his explanation and an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer gave a report dated 18.02.2004 and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. On the basis of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice dated 23.03.2004 was issued. The petitioner gave a reply to the second show cause notice on 07.04.2004. Not satisfied with the reply, the second respondent was dismissed by an order dated 03.06.2004.
7. The second respondent filed an appeal to the Managing Director vide his appeal dated 28.06.2004. The Appellate Authority by his order dated 25.08.2004 rejected the appeal. Since at the relevant time, conciliation proceedings were pending before the first respondent Conciliation Officer, the petitioner Corporation filed an Approval Petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of their action. As a pre-condition for filing the appeal, one month pay in lieu of notice was furnished to the second respondent. The first respo
