IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 5/2/2024 Delivered on 1/7/2024 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN Writ Petition No.1214 of 2014 The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd Villupuram Region Villupuram 605 602 ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour D.M.S.Compound Chennai.

2. R. Krishnamurthy ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent made in A.P.No.179 of 2011 dated 22/4/2013 and to quash the same.

For petitioners ... Mr.M.Aswin For respondents ... Labour Court – R.1 Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu for R.2 - - - - -

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited against the second respondent workman seeking to issue writ of certiorari to call for the Proceedings in Approval Petition No.179 of 2011 dated 22/4/2013 and to quash the same.

2. The facts in brief are that the second respondent has joined the petitioner Corporation as Driver on 1/9/2005 and was serving at Villupuram – I Depot. He was unauthorisedly absent from 11/4/2010 to 18/4/2010 and again from 30/4/2010 until the date of issuance of charge memo i.e., on 5/7/2010. On account of the absence of the second respondent being Driver, plying of the transport vehicles meant for the public was affected, as a result of which complaints have been received by the Branch Manager – I, on 7/5/2010 and also on 24/6/2010.

3. The petitioner Corporation was issued with a charge memo on

5/7/2010 for his mis conduct of unauthorised absence. An explanation was sought for. However, the second respondent chose not to reply, thereby the petitioner Corporation appointed an Enquiry Officer and Enquiry was conducted on various dates. However, pending enquiry, petitioner was permitted to attend duty from 11/11/2010 and enquiry was proceeded further. Finally, Enquiry Officer has submitted a report finding that the charges against the second respondent are proved.

4. Copy of the enquiry report was sent to the second respondent seeking his remarks. The second respondent has submitted a reply. As the explanation was not satisfactory, the petitioner Corporation has issued the Proceeding on 10/6/2011, dismissing him from service. It is mentioned further in the affidavit that even during the pendency of the enquiry proceeding, second respondent was absent intermittently on various spells i.e., 16, 13, 13, 11, 20 and 14 days.

5. The petitioner Corporation after dismissal of the second respondent has moved an application under 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the first respondent, Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai for approval of the dismissal of the second respondent. The same was taken up in A.P.No.179 of 2011 and after conducting enquiry, the first respondent has ultimately rejected to give the approval for the dismissal of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

6. Heard Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the second respondent.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent authority while considering the Approval Petition was misled by the second respondent and gave a finding that the petitioner Corporation has failed to pay full one month wages, as required under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted further that according to the finding of the first respondent authority, second respondent was paid Rs.80/- as Laundry Allowance in every month's salary by the petitioner Corporation under Section 33 (2) (b) of the said Act. In the last drawn salary, the abovesaid amount was not paid, thereby concluded that the petitioner Corporation has not paid salary in full. Accordingly, approval was declined.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the second res