The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of an employee becomes inoperative if not approved by the competent authorities under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the petitioner's failure to approach the authorities for reporting duty within a reasonable period led to the dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds of latches.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of retirement and pension from June 2018 and other terminal benefits to the petitioner.

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to pay back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of retirement and pension from June 2018 and other terminal and pensionary benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the 1st respondent Transport Corporation on 04.08.1986. His services were confirmed on 01.12.1987. The petitioner has served about 21 years in the Transport Corporation. A charge memo dated 13.03.2007 was issued regarding unauthorised absence of the petitioner from 26.02.2007. After conducting an enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service on 08.01.2008.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the punishment of dismissal from service was not approved and the respondent/Transport Corporation had not filed any petition under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of the punishment. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jaipur Zila Shakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others reported in [2002(1) L.L.N. 639].

4. In the present case, no Approval Petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed and therefore, the punishment of dismissal became inoperative and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages and with continuity of service. In this regard, the petitioner’s counsel sent a legal notice on 16.02.2015. Mean while, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. Thus, the petitioner has now chosen to file the present writ petition seeking terminal and pensionary benefits due to him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner served about 21 years and the Management had not filed any Approval Petition under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the terminal and pensionary benefits due to him.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent objected the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 08.01.2008 and he filed the present writ petition after a lapse of 11 years from the date of punishment of dismissal. The petitioner had not approached the authorities for reporting duty or otherwise. Contrarily, he waited till his dated of superannuation and in order to get terminal and pensionary benefits, now he has chosen to file the present writ petition. Thus, the writ petitioner is to be rejected.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent reiterated that the petitioner filed an application under Right To Information Act during the year 2014 itself. A reply was sent to him in letter dated 08.08.2014, wherein, the Public Information Officer of the respondent Transport Corporation clearly stated that the punishment of dismissal from service was sent to the residential address of the writ petitioner and also communicated to the depot in which the petitioner lastly served. It is further contended that the petitioner had not filed any appeal within a period of 60 days as stated in the order of punishment. However, it is admitted by the respondent Transport Corporation that no Approval Petition was filed. Though the petitioner secured the said information under the Right to Information Act in the year 2014, even thereafter, he has not taken any steps to approach the competent authorities for reporting duty. Thus, the petitioner had intentionally remained silent for abou