Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Maria Clete, J
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
R. Koothan – Respondent
W.P.No. 28211 of 2021 | W.M.P.No. 29809 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Aswin
For the Respondents: R.Dillikumar

Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is only attracted if a conciliation proceeding is validly pending at the time of dismissal. Without proof of such pendency, the statutory requirement for prior approval is not triggered, and a Labour Court must record this finding before granting relief.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33(2)(b) and 33C(2) - Dismissal of employee - Claim for wages based on non-compliance with statutory approval - Labour Court computed dues without recording specific finding on pendency of conciliation proceedings - Necessity of proving existence of pending conciliation at time of dismissal - In absence of such proof, Section 33 is not attracted. (Paras 3, 12, 20)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Scope of interference - Error apparent on face of record - Impermissible to introduce fresh evidence or arguments not raised before lower court - Writ court not an appellate forum to correct erroneous findings of fact - Matter remitted back for fresh consideration when evidence is insufficient. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
An employee challenged their dismissal by filing a claim petition for wages before the Labour Court, alleging a violation of statutory provisions regarding mandatory approval from a conciliation officer. The Labour Court ruled in favour of the employee without establishing whether a conciliation proceeding was actually pending on the relevant dismissal date. The employer approached the High Court seeking to quash the order, asserting that no such dispute was pending.

Findings of Court:
The Labour Court failed to record a specific finding regarding the pendency of any conciliation proceeding at the time of dismissal, basing its decision on irrelevant or non-contemporaneous documents. The High Court determined that such questions of fact cannot be resolved for the first time in writ proceedings and require a proper evidentiary foundation.

Issues: Whether the dismissal was rendered void due to the failure to obtain mandatory statutory approval for the termination of a workman, and whether the Labour Court erred in its determination in the absence of evidence regarding the pendency of conciliation proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Before invoking the mandatory approval requirements for dismissal during the pendency of a dispute, it must be proved as a fact that a conciliation proceeding was pending on the date of dismissal. Since the lower court failed to establish this foundational fact through concrete evidence, the matter must be remitted for a fresh determination. It is impermissible for superior courts to consider fresh evidence to reach factual findings that were absent in the lower court's record.

Result: Allowed; the impugned order of the Labour Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. violation of section 33(2)(b) rendering dismissal void ab initio. (Para 2 , 3 , 8)
2. evidence regarding pendency of conciliation proceedings during dismissal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.The petitioner is a State-owned Transport Corporation. In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in C.P. No. 73 of 2017, whereby the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs. 16,16,127/- as dues payable to the respondent, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum until the date of realisation. When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 04.01.2022, notice was ordered and, pending service of notice, an interim stay was also granted.

3.The core issue arising from the order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the Labour Court in C.P. No. 73 of 2017 is whether there was a violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on account of the petitioner corporation having failed to obtain approval from the competent authority before whom a conciliation proceeding was allegedly pending at the time of the respondent’s dismissal, thereby rendering the order of dismissal void ab initio and entitling the respondent to claim wages and other service benefits as if the dismissal had never been effected.

4.In light of the aforesaid issue, when the matter was taken up on 21.06.2024, a learned Judge of this Court passed the following order:

“Learned Counsel for petitioner has circulated letter dated 16.11.2021 in Letter No.C1/29146/2021, given by Joint Commissioner of Labour who is approval authority, stating that as on 28.01.2010, there was no dispute between the union and the Management. Learned Counsel for the respondent has requested short accommodation to get instruction with regard to this letter.

“

5.Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 17.04.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“Mr.Aswin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks time to verify the pendency of the common dispute in C1/37589/2007, dated 23.11.2007 as referred in Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 marked before the Trial Court.”

6.Pursuant to the above directions, learned counsel for the petitioner corporation produced the following documents:

7.In support of the aforesaid documents, an additional affidavit dated 22.04.2025 was also filed by the petitioner. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the said affidavit are reproduced below:

“6. I further submit that while deciding the computation in C.P.No.73 of 2017, the Labour Court have held that there is pendency of dispute and the said finding is on the strength of Exhibit P3 to P6.

7. I further state that where in the Exhibit P4 to P6 which belongs to Our region in respect other employees and in which the reference number Letter No. C1/37589/2007, dated 23.11.2007 is wrongly mentioned by our Management and it is irrelevant. Mistakenly, in a routine way this number was mentioned in those exhibits and it is incorrect number.

8. I further state that due to this confusion our Management vide letter dated 08.10.2021 wrote the authority requesting to furnish the details about the pendency of any common dispute. In turn the authority under section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act replied that there is no common dispute pending on 28.10.2010, which is the dismissal date of the Respondent / workman.

11. I further submit that the above common dispute was resolved on 06.02.2008 vide settlement and after that dispute was raised by the union on 2011 only.”

8.The respondent’s claim for wages following his dismissal dated 28.01.2010 was founded on the assertion that conciliation proceedings were pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at the time of his dismissal. It was contended that, in the absence of approval as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the dismissal was rendered void ab initio, thereby entitling him to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASMaria Clete, JTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd – AppellantVersusR. Koothan – RespondentW.P.No. 28211 of 2021 | W.M.P.No. 29809 of 2021

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Maria Clete, J
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
R. Koothan – Respondent
W.P.No. 28211 of 2021 | W.M.P.No. 29809 of 2021