IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No.14565 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.15452 of 2021 The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Trichy Region, Trichy – 620 001. ... Petitioner Vs.

1.B.Gnanasekaran

2.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the orders dated 26.03.2021 in A.P.No.536/2012 passed by the second respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 04.12.2012 dismissing the first respondent from service.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Murali Vinoth For R1 : Mr.K.V.Muthuvisakan Legal Aid Counsel For R2 : Mrs.M.Jayanthy Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Challenge in this writ petition is made to the orders passed by the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in A.P.No.536/2012 dated

26.03.2021.

2. The petitioner will be referred as “petitioner-corporation” and the first respondent as “workman”.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows :

The workman joined as a Conductor in the petitioner-corporation.

In the course of employment, the workman went on unauthorized leave from 24.06.2011 to 26.08.2011, without intimation to the petitioner- corporation. Therefore, the petitioner-corporation issued a charge memo on 06.09.2011, to the workman. The workman did not submit his explanation to the charge memo, however, the petitioner-corporation decided to conduct domestic enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. Pursuant to the notice dated 27.03.2012 of the enquiry officer, the workman participated in the enquiry proceedings on 07.04.2012. On 19.04.2012, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report finding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. On 11.05.2012, the petitioner-corporation sought for the workman's explanation to the enquiry report. But no explanation was sent by the workman. On 16.06.2012, the petitioner-corporation issued the second show cause notice to the workman on the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. Since the workman did not reply to the second show cause notice, the petitioner-corporation dismissed him from service on 04.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner-corporation filed the approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the second respondent. On 26.03.2021, the second respondent dismissed the approval petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner-

corporation has filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on records.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent was illegal and without proper appreciation of the materials on record. The learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent erred in substituting its own view over that of the enquiry officer, overlooking that he was only required to examine whether a prima facie case was made out. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order deserved to be dismissed since it was perverse.

6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, submitted that there was no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and therefore, it did not warrant any interference by this Court.

7. The labour court following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalla Ram Vs DCM Chemical Works Limited reporte din

1978(3)SCC framed the following issues :

i.Whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules / standing orders and principle of natural justice has been held?

ii.Whether a prima facie case has been established in the domestic enquiry based on the legally acceptable evidence ?

iii.Whether the employer had come to a