IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

W.P.No.14562 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.15448 of 2021

The Management

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

(Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam Region,

NO.27, Railway Station New Road,

Kumbakonam – 620 001. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.M.Kalaiarasan

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 31.03.2021 in A.P.No.302/2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 19.08.2011

dismissing the first respondent from service.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senapathi

For R1 : Mr.K.V.Muthuvisakan, Legal Aid Counsel

For R2 : Mrs.M.Jayanthy, AGP

ORDER

Challenge in this writ petition is made to the orders passed by the

Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in A.P.No.302/2011 dated

31.03.2021.

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 was working as a Driver in the petitioner/Corporation. On 02.03.2010, it was alleged that the workman while driving the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-49-N-1932 at 4.15 p.m., on route from Nannilam to Nagapattinam, was in a drunken state and indulged in wordy altercation with the passengers of the bus. The workman was subjected to alcohol test and the same was held to be proved. A charge memo was issued to the workman on 12.03.2010, for the alleged misconduct of driving in drunken state and for bringing disrepute to the petitioner/Corporation, under Sections 24[11], 24[14], 24[40] and 24[41] of the Standing Orders of the petitioner/Corporation. The workman submitted his reply. However, as the reply was found to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner-corporation decided to conduct domestic enquiry. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were held proved by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, a second show cause notice was issued to the workman on 26.02.2011, and thereafter, the workman was dismissed from service on 19.08.2011. On 23.08.2011, an approval petition was filed before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent, vide order dated

14.09.2017, dismissed the approval petition filed by the petitioner/Corporation. The petitioner/Corporation challenged the same before this Court in WP.No.23114/2018 and this Court, vide order dated 01.10.2020, allowed the writ petition by remanding the matter to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2^nd respondent thereafter considered the matter afresh and passed the impugned order on 31.03.2021, dismissing 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 reported in

1978(3)SCC 1 framed the following issues :

i.Whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules / standing orders and principle of natural j