The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'prima facie case' and the extent of scrutiny required for approval of dismissal order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent made in AP.No.358 of 2011 dated 22.04.2013 and to quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in AP.No.358 of 2011 dated 22.04.2013, thereby dismissed the petition filed for approval of dismissal order passed against the second respondent herein.

2. The second respondent died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as respondents 3 to 5 herein. The deceased second respondent was working as Conductor in the petitioner''s Corporation. He was assigned duty on 07.06.2010 in route No.200 P/C in bus bearing registration No.TN 21 N 1299. On surprise check by the Checking Inspector of the petitioner Corporation at about 5.38 p.m. near Varadhapalayam, he found that three passengers travelling from Tirupathi to Tada were not issued tickets with denomination of Rs.46/- x 3 = 138. On verification of the hand bag, it was found that there was shortage of Rs.109/- also. It was grave misconduct and as such, the deceased second respondent was served with charge memo dated 21.06.2015. Without satisfying with the reply submitted by the deceased second respondent, enquiry was ordered and on the enquiry, all the charges framed against him were proved. On the strength of the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service after complying with the principles of natural justice by order dated 08.09.2011. The dismissal order was served with one month salary. Thereafter, the petitioner herein sought for approval of the dismissal order in AP.No.358 of 2011 as contemplated under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it was dismissed on the ground that the passengers were not examined by the petitioner during the enquiry.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent ought to have found out whether prima facie made out or not while approving the order of dismissal. The prima facie of the case means an element availability of the misconduct substantiated or grounded on some material evidences. The prima facie of the case will not require for an existence of clear proof of misconduct. The usage of the ''prima facie of the case'', would show that the power of approval should be limited to an extent of seeing that there is existence of the prima facie of the case to see that there is no victimization of the employee. He further submitted that the Department made out a prima facie case by admission of the deceased second respondent himself and there is no requirement of any standard proof of evidences to substantiate the further claim.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that the Department admittedly failed to examine any independent witness. They also failed to examine even the driver of the bus who drove the bus during the surprise inspection. That apart, they failed to examine any passenger to whom tickets were not issued after collecting money. Therefore, the first respondent rightly rejected the approval petition and it does not require any interference of this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

6. The deceased second respondent was served with charge memo dated 21.06.2010 that on surprise inspection conducted by the Checking Inspector of the petitioner Corporation, it was found that three passengers travelling from Tirupathi to Tada were not issued tickets with denomination of Rs.46/- x 3 = 138. That apart, in the handbag, it was found shortage of Rs.109/-. After receipt of reply on the show cause notice, enquiry was ordered. During the enquiry, the Checking Inspector was examined and prima facie made out by the Department and as such, the deceased second respondent was dismissed from service. In order to approve the same, the petitioner filed petit