Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Ltd. Rep by its General Manager – Appellant
Versus
D.Alexander (deceased) – Respondent
ORDER :
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award in A.P.No.272 of 2012 whereby, the second respondent refused to grant approval for the order of punishment of dismissal from service passed by the petitioner / Management.
2.Upon perusing the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and hearing Mr.Aswin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, the grievance of the Management is that D.Alexander, the workman originally involved in this case joined duty with the petitioner / Management on temporary basis on 11.11.2007. He worked for only about eight months and was unauthorisedly absent from 20.07.2008. A report in this regard was received from the concerned branch on 22.07.2011 and thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 27.07.2011. No explanation whatsoever was admitted by the workman. However, a domestic enquiry was ordered and in the enquiry the workman participated.
3.It is the case of the workman that he fell down from a two-wheeler and got fits and therefore, he was taking treatment and he became well only in the year 2012. However, the medical records that was produced did not support the said stand. The enquiry officer t
The inquiry into the dismissal was deemed unfair and resulted in a one-time compensation of Rs.2,00,000 to the legal heirs instead of reinstatement due to procedural lapses.
The court upheld the refusal of dismissal approval based on insufficient domestic enquiry and procedural irregularities, emphasizing the necessity of fairness and timeliness in such proceedings.
Unauthorized absence without prior permission may amount to misconduct, and the principles of natural justice must be complied with in conducting an enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial D....
The court emphasized the distinct nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
The court upheld the termination of a workman for unauthorized absence, ruling that the enquiry was fair and the management adequately proved the misconduct despite the workman's claims of unfair tre....
Dismissal of workmen for unauthorized absence deemed unjustified; compensation awarded instead of reinstatement due to age of superannuation, emphasizing fairness in domestic enquiries.
The court established that a fair domestic enquiry and proportional punishment for habitual unauthorized absence from duty are essential under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the burden o....
Discretion under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously; compassion cannot be the basis for modifying penalties in labor disputes involving misconduct.
Judicial review of employment dismissal upholds employer's decision for unauthorized absence, stressing the responsibility of the employee to inform their employer, particularly during prolonged illn....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
