Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3572
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. JAICHANDREN & M. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited Rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai
Versus
The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) & Another
W.A.(MD).No.1056 of 2013
Decided On : 09-10-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:A.P. Muthu Pandian, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, M. Govindan, Spl.G.P, R2, A. Rahul, Advocate.
Compliance with the mandatory conditions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is crucial, and the proviso to this section is mandatory in nature.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Jurisdiction of Labour Commissioner - Section 33 (2) (b) - Section 2 (rr) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates the payment of one month's wages and the employer's application for approval of the action to the appropriate authority. The court also referred to the definition of 'wages' in Section 2 (rr) of the Act. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) and highlighted the importance of compliance with its conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, dismissed an employee after conducting a 'Domestic Enquiry'. The Labour Commissioner rejected the approval petition filed by the appellant, citing non-compliance with Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not complied with the essential condition of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act at the time of dismissal of the employee. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) and held that the concurrent finding of fact by the Labour Commissioner and the Single Judge did not suffer from impropriety, material irregularity, or patent illegality.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the rejection of the approval petition by the Labour Commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the mandatory nature of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) and the importance of compliance with its conditions. The court upheld the rejection of the approval petition by the Labour Commissioner and the Single Judge.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
M. Venugopal, J.
1. The Appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, has preferred the instant Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 7/2/2012 in W.P.(MD) No.39008 of 2004 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.
2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order in W.P.(MD) No.39008 of 2004 (filed by the Second Respondent/Petitioner) on 7/2/2012 has inter alia observed that
"Though the 1st respondent held that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and that the charges have been proved, the 1st respondent was right in rejecting the approval petition on the ground that Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act was not complied with."
and found no infirmity in the order of the First Respondent dated 12/4/2004 in Approval Petition No.180 of 2003 and resultantly, dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation, Virudhunagar contends that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the First Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, has no wider jurisdiction under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to reappraise the evidence recorded in the 'Domestic Enquiry' to find out whether the charges against the Second Respondent/Employee were proved with sufficient evidence or not.
4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant paid one month's wages to the Second Respondent based on the wages paid to him immediately prior to his dismissal and as such, there was no compliance of the ingredients of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. The stand taken on behalf of the Appellant Corporation is that the Second Respondent was dismissed from service on 3/2/2003 by the Appellant/Transport Corporation after conducting a fair and proper 'Domestic Enquiry'. Further, the revised Dearness Allowance was to be paid to the Second Respondent with effect from 1/1/2003 viz., prior to the date of his dismissal. Also that as per the calculation, the Appellant/Transport Corporation had correctly paid one month's salary of Rs.7,661.90 to the Second Respondent. However, this vital aspect of the matter was not looked into not only by the First Respondent and also by the Learned Single Judge at the time of passing of the orders.
6. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent submits that the First Respondent through his Order dated 12/4/2004 in A.P.No.180 of 2013 has rightly rejected the application for approval on the ground that the Appellant/Transport Corporation had not complied with mandatory conditions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and further held that in the enquiry into the charges framed against the Second Respondent, a prima facie case was not made out.
7. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent contends that the Learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition No.39008 of 2004 on 7/2/2012 (filed by the Appellant/Transport Corporation) has rightly held that 'there is no infirmity in the order of the First Respondent, warranting interference at the hands of this Court and consequently, dismissed the Writ petition, which need not be interfered with by this Court at this distance point of time'.
8. It is not in dispute that the Second Respondent worked as a Conductor under the Appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited. The case of the Appellant/Transport Corporation is that on 11/5/2000, at about 9.50 a.m., the Second Respondent, prevented another Driver from attending to the duty and also took away his keys of T.V.S. Moped and also threatened him to go back to his house. On such allegation, a charge memo was issued to the Second Respondent, who denied the same. An enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry against the Second Respondent/delinquent and found him guilty of the charges and also came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against
