Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. SURENDER, J.
The Management, Kothari Petrochemicals Limited - Petitioner
Versus
M. Sivakumar - Respondent
Writ Petition No.33428 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.36213 of 2024
Decided On : 03-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Labour Law - Termination of Service
Act Referred
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES RULES : R.64
Headnote
(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11 - Powers of Conciliation Officer are limited to verifying compliance with standing orders and principles of natural justice - Conciliation Officer cannot re-appreciate evidence to draw conclusions on charges as if adjudicating a dispute. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
Respondent was terminated following allegations of assault. The Management obtained approval for termination under Section 33(2)(b) from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Subsequently, the respondent challenged his termination before the Labour Court. When the Labour Court ordered the Management to lead evidence at a preliminary stage to prove the fairness of the domestic enquiry, treating the Conciliation Officer's prior findings as nullity, the Management filed this writ petition challenging that order.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that while the Conciliation Officer’s proceedings are not final and do not bar the Labour Court from independently adjudicating the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court erred in calling the prior approval order a nullity. The Labour Court must allow the Management to justify the domestic enquiry if it finds defects, but should not treat the approval proceedings as if sitting in appeal.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court is barred by res judicata from examining the fairness of a domestic enquiry after a Conciliation Officer has granted approval under Section 33(2)(b); and whether the Labour Court can treat the Conciliation Officer's findings as a nullity.
Ratio Decidendi: An approval order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is summary in nature; therefore, it does not preclude the Labour Court from independently examining the fairness of a domestic enquiry in a substantive dispute, provided the Management is given due opportunity to lead evidence.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Mohan for M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.D. Sugumar.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the dismissal dispute and the procedural challenge regarding the labour court order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments concerning the binding nature of the conciliation officer's approval on the labour court. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court holds section 33(2)(b) proceedings are summary and do not preclude independent labour court adjudication. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. setting aside the impugned order and remanding for further proceedings. (Para 23) |
ORDER :
The petitioner Management is aggrieved by the interim order passed in O.P.No.145 of 2023 by the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai, directing the petitioner Management to let in evidence to establish their stand that the domestic enquiry was conducted properly.
2. The background of the case is that a complaint was filed against the respondent M.Sivakumar for using abusing language and attacking another employee, viz., M.Jaison David. The said Jaison David underwent treatment in a hospital and also lodged a Police complaint which was registered as First Information Report. Considering the grave nature of the allegations, respondent was suspended from service, pending domestic enquiry.
3. The respondent was served with a charge memo dated 9/4/2021 and four charges were framed for physically assaulting and intimidating the said Jaison David using abusive language, amounting to criminal misconduct.
4. The explanation sought for initially was found unsatisfactory, as such an external person was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry. Witnesses were examined during the domestic enquiry and findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 30/8/2021 were sent to the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken. Thereafter, the Management decided to terminate the services of the respondent and issued an order of termination dated 16/10/2021.
5. The Management filed a petition under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Concilation - II) seeking approval of the termination order. Cheque for a sum of Rs.52,255/- was given towards final settlement and also a month’s salary.
6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Concilation II) after conducting enquiry, approved the termination, by his order dated 1/3/2023. All through the proceedings, stand of the respondent was one of denial and that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, violating the principles of natural justice.
7. Challenging the order of termination, the respondent filed a petition under Section 2 A of the Act, before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and since no orders were passed even after a lapse of 45 days, the petition was then filed before the Additional Labour Court, and the same was numbered as O.P.No.145 of 2023. A memo was filed by the respondent on 3/7/2024, requesting the labour Court to decide a preliminary issue in respect of fairness in domestic enquiry. The labour Court, decided the memo and passed orders on 9/10/2024. The Management is aggrieved by the orders passed in the memo and the operative portion of the order reads as under:-
“11. This Court is in view that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is only quasi judicial authority and not superior to the Labour Court. From the order of the quasi judicial authority, this Court understands that both the parties had let in evidence and had subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the quasi judicial authority. They have volunteered to let in evidence before the quasi judicial authority and they were also cross examined. Both the parties have filed their written arguments and everything were considered by the quasi judicial authority and it has passed an order by giving a finding that the domestic enquiry was properly conducted. The petitioner should have raised his objection before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The petitioner should
