Domestic enquiry invalid if proven minute recorded same day as sole witness examination, violating natural justice.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

25.09.2024 passed in A.P. No 217 of 2023 by the 1st respondent, the Special Joint Commissioner for Labour, Chennai and seeking to quash the same.

2.The case of the petitioner Management is that the second respondent joined as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation on 07.08.2012. On 08.07.2023, while employed as a driver of the bus bearing Registration No. 29/N 2170, he drove the bus from Krishnagiri Town Branch near Kaveripattinam bus stand. During inspection, the Inspector of the petitioner Corporation examined the diesel card and diesel tank lock. The second respondent failed to give proper answers and refused to sign the memorandum. Further, he instigated the passengers and created a commotion among them, and thereafter absconded from duty at an intermediate stop during the night. Consequently, the second respondent was placed under suspension on 10.07.2023. Subsequently, a charge memo was issued to him on 08.08.2023, for which he submitted his explanation on 09.09.2023. As the explanation was not satisfactory, a show cause notice was issued on 03.11.2023, and an enquiry was conducted on 16.11.2023. On the same day, the Enquiry Officer recorded a proven minute. Based on the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued on 11.12.2023. Thereafter, the second respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 22.12.2023.On the same day, the petitioner Management filed an Approval Petition in A.P. No. 217 of 2023 before the first respondent, the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, which was received by the Court on 28.12.2023. However, the first respondent concluded that the approval petition was not filed simultaneously and accordingly dismissed it. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, relying upon the order passed by the Labour Court holding that the approval petition was not filed simultaneously, this Court also dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 709 of 2026 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench, by order dated 17.03.2026, upon perusal of the postal receipts, arrived at the conclusion that the approval petition had in fact been sent on the same day, i.e., on 22.12.2023, and was received on 28.12.2023. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the order of this Court and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. 4.The learned counsel would further submit that this Court has to consider whether the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted on 16.11.2023 and, on the same day, the Enquiry Officer recorded a proven minute. However, conducting the enquiry and drawing the proven minute on the same day cannot be held to be illegal, so long as the petitioner establishes the misconduct committed by the workman. In the present case, based on the proven minute, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry by examining the management witness, who was also cross-examined by the second respondent. Further, the second respondent did not adduce any evidence before the Enquiry Officer with regard to the examination. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the second respondent, the Enquiry Officer rightly drew a proven minute against him, which cannot be interfered with and has to be examined only before the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act or under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreove