BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.A.(MD)No.116 of 2021 P.Ayyavu ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court Madurai - 20

2.The Management State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd., Chennai through its General Manager Chennai - 2

3.The Branch Manager State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd., Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.2674 of

2014 dated 13.12.2019 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Govindan For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh for R2 & R3

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. The appellant herein was appointed as Junior Tradesman in the respondent corporation in the year 1985. His services were regularized in the year 1987. He was unauthorizedly absent from 09.08.2001. After issuing charge memo on 13.08.2001 and holding domestic enquiry, the management dismissed the appellant from service on 25.01.2003. The appellant raised an industrial dispute. It was taken on file by the Labour Court in I.D.No.9 of 2011. The industrial dispute was partly allowed in favour of the appellant vide award dated 30.11.2011. The order of termination was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service(except the period from 25.01.2003 to March 2011). He filed W.P.(MD)No.2674 of 2014 questioning the award and sought backwages as well as continuity of service for the denied period.

The learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.12.2019 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this intra-court appeal has been filed by the employee.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following contentions:-

(a) The misconduct attributed to the writ petitioner was unauthorized absence for five days. On the expiry of the five days' period, charge memo was issued. He was eventually dismissed from service also. Dismissing an employee from service for five days' unauthorized absence is grossly disproportionate and had been found to be illegal in a catena of decisions.

(b) It is true that the appellant moved the Labour Court after a gap of almost eight years. When the Labour Court chose to set aside the order of termination, while it could have denied backwages, it could not have denied continuity of service which could count for pensionary and other purposes.

c) The following decisions were referred to:-

(i) 2008 Writ L.R. 175 (P.Vasu Vs. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.)

(ii) (2002) 9 SCC 549 (Krishi Utpandan Manidi Samiti Vs.

Aravind Chaubey and Another)

(iii) (2000) 9 SCC 496 (Gurmail Singh Vs. Principal Government College of Education and Others)

(iv) 2013 (1) LLN 328 (SC) (Ex-hav. Satbir Singh Vs. The Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi and Another)

(v) 2017 – III – LLJ – 617 (Mad) (The Management of TNSTC (Sale Division - I) Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and Another)

(vi) 2019 – II – LLJ – 313 (Mad) (S.Amulnathan Vs. Managing Director, TNSTC (Villupuram) Limited)

(vii) W.A.(MD)No.1654 of 2016 dated 26.04.2017 (V.Boopathy Vs. The Management of TNSTC (Madurai) Limited)

(viii) W.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2016 dated 27.09.2023 (S.Thukkamuthu Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and Another).

4.Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the corporation submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court rightly approached the issue by taking into account the writ petitioner's conduct and that interference is not warranted.

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. We unhesitatingly endorse the proposition that for mere five days' absence from service, one cannot be dismissed. But the writ petitioner was not absent for just five days. He did not report for duty from 09.08.2001. It is true that within five days, charge memo wa