IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA and WMP No.47646 of 2025 H.Rajan Babu, Employment No. 399, No. 23, East Coovam Road, Chindadripet, Chennai- 600 002.

Petitioner(s)

Vs The Management Madras Gymkhana Club, The Island No.1, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

Respondent(s)

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai present on Tmt. P.R. Supraja presiding Oficer passed impugned order dated 17.06.2025 in A.P No. 01 of 2024 in O.P No. 233 of 2023 and quash the same and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Kumaraswamy

ORDER

Writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, dated 17.06.2025, in A.P No. 01 of 2024 in O.P No.

233 of 2023.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent on 01.08.1996.

On 10.03.2023, he was suspended for an alleged act of misconduct committed on 05.03.2023. The respondent issued a charge memo on 21.03.2023, to which the petitioner replied on 25.03.2023. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved. Subsequently, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.09.2023, and the petitioner submitted his reply on 14.09.2023. Pursuant to the petitioner's reply, on 07.12.2023, the dismissal order was passed by the respondent. Later, the respondent filed Approval Petition before the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in A.P.No.1 of 2024. The III Additional Labour Court, Chennai on 17.06.2025, allowed the Approval Petition. Aggrieved by the approval granted to the dismissal order passed by the respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner prayed for setting aside the approval order, the petitioner is restricting the prayer to a liberty to challenge the dismissal order by raising a Section 2-A dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in WP No.32235 of 2016, in support of his contention that such liberty could be granted. Since the prayer in the writ petition is restricted to a liberty to challenge the dismissal order invoking Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to in law, the writ petition is disposed of without notice to the respondents.

4. The petitioner has challenged the order granting approval in A.P.No.

1 of 2024, dated 17.06.2025. The petitioner has restricted the prayer to a liberty to challenge the dismissal order under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is settled that, once the approval is granted, the employee is entitled to raise an industrial dispute questioning the illegality of the dismissal order. When similar issue arose before this Court in WP No.32235 of 2016, this Court in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, held as follows:

“ 6.The power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not available to the Authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. It is seen that the order of dismissal was passed on 09.11.2011 and the rejection order of Approval Petition was on 09.06.2014, which has been tested by the employer before this Court. Once approval is granted, it does not mean that the employee's rights are taken away and he is entitled to raise an Industrial Dispute, questioning the dismissal order, if it is approved by the Authority, as this Court is inclined to reverse the order of the Authority in question.

7. The next issue is as to whether the employee will be out of time, in view of the amendment of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which came into eff