IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.8454 of 2026 The Management Rep. by its General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation VPM Ltd., Kancheepuram Region, Ponnerilarai near Karapettai post, Chennai-Bangalore High ways, Kancheepuram District-631 552 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs S.Baskaran (Died)

1. Jawahar, Kadambur Village, Kambhalam Poondi Post, Maduranthagam Taluka, Kancheepuram District.

2. Diwakar Kadambur Village, Kambhalam Poondi Post, Maduranthagam Taluka, Kancheepuram District.

3. Vidyakar Kadambur Village, Kambhalam Poondi Post, Maduranthagam Taluka, Kancheepuram District.

4. The Special Joint Commission of labour D.M.S. Campus, Chennai.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A.P.No.01 of 2016 passed by the 4^th respondent, the Special Joint Commissioner for Labour, Chennai dated 04.07.2025 and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Ms.S Pavithra For Respondent(s): Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Murthi, Government Advocate for R4

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A.P.No.01 of 2016 passed by the 4^th respondent, the Special Joint Commissioner for Labour, Chennai, dated 10.01.2024 (in the prayer of the Writ Petition, the date of impugned order has erroneously mentioned as 04.07.2025 instead of 10.01.2024) and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Transport Corporation would submit that the father of the private respondents namely, S. Baskaran, was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner Transport Corporation on 13.05.1988 and was made permanent on 01.07.1989. Subsequently, the said workman remained in unauthorised absence from 31.01.2013 to 21.08.2013. In view of the said unauthorised absence, a charge memo dated 20.05.2013 was issued to the workman and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Upon completion of the enquiry and on consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner Management passed a final order removing the workman from service on 14.03.2014.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner Corporation filed an Approval Petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the 4^th respondent / Special Joint Commissioner for Labour, Chennai, in A.P.No.01 of 2016, seeking approval of the order of removal. However, the 4^th respondent rejected the approval petition by order dated 10.01.2024 on the ground that the petition was not filed simultaneously and that there was delay in filing the same.

4. In the meanwhile, the workman died on 25.02.2019 and consequently, the petitioner impleaded the legal heirs of the deceased workman as respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved by the order of the 4^th respondent rejecting the approval petition, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Transport Corporation.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the unauthorised absence of the respondent workman was clearly established before the Labour Court. However, the 4^th respondent rejected the approval petition mainly on the ground that the simultaneous application was not filed within time. According to the petitioner, the delay was properly explained, and therefore, the approval petition ought not to have been rejected on a mere technical ground.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while considering the approval petition under Section 33(2)(b), the Labour Court is required to examine the matter in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. Managment of D.C.M. Chemicals Works Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004. It is contended that the Labour Court failed to apply the said principles in the proper perspective while rejecting the approval petition.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the private respondents submitted