W.P.(MD)No.8851 of 2015

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 27.11.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD)No.8851 of 2015

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

P.Ravichandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The General Manager,

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,

Kumbakonam Ltd.,

Kumbakonam.

Tanjore District.

2.Assistant Manager (Disciplinary Proceedings),

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,

Kumbakonam Ltd.,

Pudukottai Region,

Pudukkottai District,

3.The Enquiry Officer,

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,

Kumbakonam Ltd.,

Pudukkottai Region,

Pudukottai District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the enquiry

report passed by the third respondent in enquiry No.T3/340, dated

26.06.2014 and the order of punishment passed by the second

respondent in proceeding No.TaAaPoKa/Kumba/Pudhu/Ts/T3/340, dated

31.03.2015 and to quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.R.Laxman

For Respondents

: Mr.D.Sivaraman

ORDER

The petitioner challenged the order of the third respondent

dated 26.06.2014 and the order of punishment passed by the second

respondent dated 31.03.2015. Disciplinary proceedings were

initiated against the petitioner who was working as a Driver in

the Transport Corporation and after conducting an enquiry, the

order of punishment was issued imposing stoppage of increment for

five years with cumulative effect.

1/9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD)No.8851 of 2015

2.The learned counsel for the respondent made a submission

that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the

fact that the petitioner is a workman and his service conditions

are governed under the settlement under the Industrial Disputes

Act. Thus, the petitioner has to approach the Labour Court.

3.This Court is of the considered opinion that once the

workmen are governed under the settlement under the Industrial

Disputes Act, they are bound to exhaust the remedies under the

Industrial Disputes Act itself. Adjudication of the issues before

the Labour Court cannot be construed as inefficacious. Thus, the

High Court cannot entertain the writ petition on the ground that

the alternative remedy before the Labour Court cannot be an

effective remedy. In fact, the workmen would get an opportunity

to adjudicate all the issues with reference to the documents and

evidence before the Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioner being

a workman is bound to approach the Labour Court for the purpose of

redressal of his grievances in the manner known to law.

4.This Court has elaborately considered the entertainability

of the writ petition in this regard filed by the workman in W.P.

(MD)No.10416 of 2009 and 2926 of 2010 and the relevant paragraphs

are extracted hereunder:-

“45.This Court is of an undoubted opinion that the

power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is well defined. Repeatedly, the

Supreme Court held that the judicial review under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is directed, not against a

decision, but the decision making process. Of course, a

patent illegality and / or error apparent on the face of

the decision which goes to the root of the decision, made

various decision making process. In the event of no such

decision or in the event of no such actions on the part of

the respondents, in a writ petition, then the High Court

cannot issue any direction based on certain apprehensions

raised by the parties in the writ petition. Thus, the scope

of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been well defined and therefore, the High Court

cannot entertain a writ petition in a routine manner where

a statutory remedy is very much available for the litigants

to redress their grievance