IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.No.14312 of 2025 The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, 37, Mettupalayam Salai, Coimbatore – 43. ...Petitioner Vs.

1. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Authority under Industrial Disputes Act, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

2. M.Balasubramanian ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1^st respondent pertaining to his proceedings in A.P.No.48 of 2023 dated 24.04.2024 and quash the same and consequently allow the approval petition filed by the petitioner management in A.P.No.48 of 2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vinothraj For Respondents : Mr.K.Surendran, AGP, for R1

O R D E R

This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order of the 1^st respondent dated 24.04.2024 made in A.P.No.48 of 2023 and to consequently allow the approval petition filed by the petitioner management in A.P.No.48 of 2023.

2. Mr.K.Surendran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, this Writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since no adverse order is being passed against the 2^nd respondent, notice to the 2^nd respondent is dispensed with.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent was working as a Helper attached to Head office branch at Coimbatore. While so, since the

2^nd respondent was unauthorizedly absent from 18.09.2019 duty for more than 10 days, a charge memo dated 08.10.2019 was issued by the petitioner corporation as against the 2^nd respondent, for which, as no explanation was submitted by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner corporation proceeded with the domestic enquiry was initiated and though a notice of hearing was served, the 2^nd respondent/workman did not participate in the enquiry, thereby, he was set exparte. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 30.11.2022. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued on 10.02.2023, even for which, as no explanation was provided, the 2^nd respondent was dismissed from service on 27.04.2023. Thereafter, an Approval Petition was filed before the 1^st respondent, however, the same was rejected by the 1^st respondent, vide impugned order dated 24.04.2024.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner corporation submitted that, the 1^st respondent had rejected the approval petition on the ground that there was a delay of seven days, which is not sustainable, since mere delay of 7 days in filing the approval petition will not vitiate the entire proceedings, While so, rejecting the approval petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that, the same was not filed simultaneously before the authority is not sustainable, as the word simultaneous mentioned is not explained either in the Act or in the rules. Hence, the order of the 1^st respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed for appropriate orders.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent submitted that, though the 2^nd respondent was dismissed from service on 27.04.2023, however, the petitioner corporation had filed the approval petition only on 04.05.2023 with a delay of 7 days, which is an incurable defect as per the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited Vs. C.Iyandhurai and anr. (W.A. No.1555 of 2022) dated 01.08.2022. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

“The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent-Authority in dismissing the appellan