Advocates:
['M/S M CHIDAMBARAM', '', 'R GIRIJA', 'N VARALAKSHMI', 'K M RAMESH', '', 'S APUNU', 'V SIVARAMAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P.NO.22874 OF 2018

AND

W.M.P.NO.26744 OF 2018

The Management of Metropolitan

Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,

Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

... Petitioner

.Vs.

R.Palani

... Respondent

PRAYER:-

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for

the records pertaining to the order passed in A.P.No.432 of 2011

dated 28.02.2018 on the files of the Special Deputy Commissioner

of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chidambaram

For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Ramesh

ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorari

calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in

A.P.No.432 of 2011 dated 28.02.2018 on the file of the Special

Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006 and

quash the same.

2. The respondent was working as a Conductor at the

petitioner Corporation against whom a disciplinary proceedings

was initiated for the alleged charge of unauthorised absence for

8 days and more.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Pursuant to which, a charge memo was prepared and based

on which, a domestic enquiry was conduced since the respondent

did not appear for the domestic enquiry, it was conducted

exparte and during the relevant point of time since there was an

industrial dispute pending before the concerned authority, it

become necessitated for the petitioner management to seek an

approval for such decision taken to terminate the petitioner

pursuant to the said domestic enquiry conducted in this regard

under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. Such an application to seek approval from the Labour

Commissioner was sent by the petitioner management and the said

application having been considered was rejected by the Labour

Commissioner by the order impugned dated 28.02.2018 in

A.P.No.432 of 2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner

management has filed the present writ petition.

5. Heard Mr.M.Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner who would submit that, though notice had been sent to

the respondent employee, it could not be served, therefore it

was pasted in the Notice Board and subsequently, as the

respondent employee did not cooperate or turn for conducting the

enquiry, the management decided to proceed with an exparte

enquiry and accordingly an exparte domestic enquiry was

conducted and ultimately the Enquiry Officer, having considered

the evidences available with him filed on behalf of the

petitioner management, has come to the conclusion that, the

charge made against the respondent i.e. unauthorised absence has

been proved, based on which, the petitioner management has taken

a decision to terminate the respondent from service by taking

into account the Enquiry Officer's report as well as the earlier

punishment awarded by the petitioner management to the

respondent, where, 12 time such kind of punishment has been

awarded to the respondent employee.

6. When that application was made to the Labour

Commissioner, he has not considered the said application in

proper perspective and has only proceeded to decide all the

questions based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Lalla

Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works AIR 1978 (SC) 1004 and come to a

cryptic conclusion that, before the Labour Commissioner, except

the Enquiry Officer's report nothing since has been filed by the

petitioner management, such a question as to whether the

domestic enquiry was properly conducted and the appropriate

opportunity was given to the employee during the domestic

enquiry and the evidences in support of the charge whether has

been pr