The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with established procedures and providing opportunities for defense, as well as the need for appropriate actions against officials responsible for negligence and dereliction of duty in dealing with disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.515 of 2012 dated 26.05.2014 and to quash the same.)

The writ petition has been instituted, questioning the award passed by the first respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.515 of 2012 dated 26.05.2014.

2. The petitioner is the Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Limited). The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent/Thiru.B.Balachandar was working as a Conductor at Saidapet Depot in Petitioner's Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second respondent/workman and an enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry report, the competent disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner Management filed an Approval Petition before the first respondent seeking an Approval under Section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act'). The said application was rejected by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner Management has not marked the enquiry proceedings along with the Approval Petition and in the absence of such enquiry proceedings, the first respondent could not able to form an opinion that the procedures as contemplated for conducting an enquiry was followed for imposing penalty on the second respondent/workman.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the procedures as contemplated were scrupulously followed in the case of the second respondent / workman. He was granted with the opportunity of defending his case during the enquiry proceedings and he also defended his case. However, there was a mistake on the part of the officials, who attended the Labour Court in furnishing the copy of the enquiry proceedings, which resulted in rejection of Approval Petition and therefore, the writ petition is to be considered.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent/workman objected the said contention by stating that there are two circumstances - (i) The petitioner Management had not furnished the copy of the enquiry proceedings and (ii) Without conducting any enquiry, they have imposed the penalty. In the event of not conducting the enquiry, which is the finding in the present order passed by the first respondent, the penalty imposed cannot be sustained and therefore, the Approval Petition is in order and consequently, the writ petition is to be rejected.

5. Every dispute is to be adjudicated in the manner known to law. The departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the procedures as established. Once a charge memorandum has been issued against a workman, an opportunity as contemplated is to be provided. Thus, an enquiry proceedings are to be filed before the competent authority along with the application filed seeking Approval under Section 33 (2) (B) of the ID Act. In the present case, the writ petitioner Management states that it was not furnished by mistake and the officials, who attended the Labour Court, had failed to furnish the same. Thus, the Labour Court drew an inference that the enquiry proceedings have not been established and consequently, the petition was rejected.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/workman made a submission that the wages were not paid in accordance with law.

7. Thus on that ground also, the first respondent rejected the Approval Petition. However, all these issues are to be adjudicated on merits and with reference to the documents and evidences available. High Court cannot conduct an enquiry in respect of the disputed issues in this regard. The Approval Petition was rejected on the ground that the enquiry proceedings were not marked as documents along with the Approval Petition filed by the writ petitioner Management under Section 33 (2) (B) of the ID Act. This being the factum, this Cour