IMPORTANT POINT
The approving authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act cannot re-evaluate evidence or act as an appellate body when assessing the fairness of a domestic inquiry.

ORDER :

C.Kumarappan, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records passed by the 2nd respondent in AP.No.158/2012 on 18.11.2014 and to quash the same.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Management as petitioner. According to the petitioner, the first respondent was a conductor, and that for a misconduct of misappropriation, he was served with a charge sheet on 17.02.2010. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent has submitted his explanation on 02.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has ordered for a departmental enquiry. After completing enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his positive final report. The petitioner, on receipt of the enquiry report has called for the further explanation from the first respondent. Having considered the Enquiry report, further explanation and 23 past delinquency, the petitioner-Management awarded the capital punishment of dismissal from service against the first respondent.

2. It appears that since the dismissal order has been passed during the pendency of the other proceedings not connected to this delinquency, the petitioner has sought for the approval from the appropriate Authority qua the Commissioner of Labour under Section 33(2)(b) of “The Industrial Disputes Act” [hereinafter shall be referred to as “ID Act” for the sake of convenience]. The appropriate Authority has dismissed the approval petition on 25.04.2012. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has challenged the approval petition in the instant writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Aswin would contend that the Authority has overreached it's jurisdiction. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Authority has acted like an Appellate Authority and has attempted to re-appreciate the evidence and document and not followed the mandatory principles as contemplated in Lalla Ram Vs. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., and another reported in (1978) 3 SCC 1. It was also contended that the reason assigned by the Authority for dismissing the application is in contravention to the settled legal position and therefore, would contend that the rejection of approval petition is contrary to the ID Act.

4. Despite the name is printed in the cause list, no one is appeared on behalf of the first respondent. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader appeared.

5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has dismissed the first respondent from service. However, in view of the pendency of proceedings not connected to the issue, the petitioner sought an approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. The Authority has considered such application in the backdrop of Lalla Ram's case [cited supra]. Now the issue is, whether such consideration is in accordance to the above cited judgment.

6. Before going into the factual position, this Court deems it appropriate to see what are all the essential factor under Lalla Ram's case. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio. For ready reference, paragraph 12 is extracted hereunder:-

“12. The position that emerges from the abovequoted decisions of this Court may be stated thus: In proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is confined to the enquiry as to (i) whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing Orders and principles of natural justice has been held; (ii) whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out; (iii) whether the employer had come to a bona fide conclusion that the employee was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice and was not intended to victimise the employee regard being had to the position settled by the decisions of this Court in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co.