BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.A(MD)No.453 of 2021 Ramasamy ... Appellant /

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Tiruchirappalli Region, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents /

Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order of the learned Judge passed in W.P(MD)No.12174 of

2015 dated 21.12.2020 and allow the writ petition as prayed for.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.H.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

3.The appellant joined the respondent transport corporation as driver. On 10.02.2007, the bus driven by him met with an accident. The management initiated disciplinary action against the appellant and issued a charge memo dated 13.03.2007. It contained 3 articles of charge. The appellant offered his explanation. Not satisfied with the same, the management straightaway imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect.

4.Challenging the said punishment, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Since it was not considered, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.12174 of 2015. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 21.12.2020 on the ground that the appellant ought to have moved the jurisdictional labour Court. Assailing the said dismissal order, this writ appeal has been filed.

5.We must straightaway disagree with the reason assigned by the learned single Judge that the appellant has remedy before the labour Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, only in cases of dismissal, removal or discharge, the individual can approach the labour Court on his own. Otherwise, the dispute will have to be espoused by the concerned union under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In other words, the workman has to be at the mercy of the union. This cannot be construed as an effective alternative remedy. Therefore, we hold that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of the alternative remedy was incorrect.

6.It is seen that the punishment was imposed on the appellant without holding any enquiry. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the corporation submitted that in a case of this nature, the Standing Orders do not envisage holding an enquiry. This defence was specifically rejected by one of us (GRSJ) vide order dated 18.01.2018 in W.P(MD)No.17463 of 2014 (S.D.Kamaraj Vs Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited & Another)

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said order read as follows:

“6.No doubt, service conditions of the employees like writ petitioner are governed by the standing orders for the employees of Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam. Clause 25(1) reads as under:

“25.Punishment for Misconduct:

1.The following shall be the prescribed punishment that may be awarded to workman, guilty of misconduct.

i.Censure ii.Fine: Subject to the provisions of Payment of Wages Act.

iii.Stoppage of increments: Stoppage of increments with ot without cumulative effect.

iv. a)Recovery from wages whole or part of any pecuniary loss, caused to the Corporation by the negligence of breach of orders of the workman. b)Recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increment ordered to be withhold where such an order cannot be given effect to.

c)recovery of from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale ordered where such an ordered cannot be given