High Court · 2025

WP No. 11999 of 2018IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALAWP No. 11999 of 2018ANDWMP NO. 13977 OF 20181. The ManagementTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, rep by its General Manager, Trichy Region, Trichirapalli - 620 001Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Special DeputyCommissioner of Labour DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai2.P.Chandrasekar,Temporary Driver, Staff No.07DR600/ 13558/ Musiri Branch, Res. at Sukkampatti Po, Musiri Tk, Trichy DtRespondent(s)WMP No. 13977 of 20181. The ManagementTamil Nadu State Transport 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, rep by its General Manager, Trichy Region, Trichirapalli - 620 001Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Special DeputyCommissioner of Labour DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai2.P.Chandrasekar,Temporary Driver, Staff No.07DR600/ 13558/ Musiri Branch, Res. at Sukkampatti Po, Musiri Tk, Trichy DtRespondent(s)WP No. 11999 of 2018PRAYERWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the 1st respondent in Approval Petition No.200 of 2013 and quash the same, consequently direct the 1st respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 25.06.2013 dismissing the 2nd respondent from service.For Petitioner(s):Mr. M. Murali VinodhFor Respondent(s):Mrs.M.Jayanthy, AGP For R1. R2-NO appearance2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018ORDER(1)The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, dismissing the petitioner's Approval Application under Section 33[2][b] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.(2)Brief facts leading to the above writ petition are as follows:(3)The 2nd respondent was working as Driver in the petitioner/Corporation. While so, he went on unauthorised leave from 24.04.2008 to 21.11.2008. The petitioner / Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent, by invoking Rule 24[6][A] of the Standing Order of the petitioner / Corporation. A Charge Memo, was issued to the 2nd respondent on 31.12.2008 ; but the 2nd respondent failed to submit any explanation to the charge memo. The petitioner/Corporation, thereafter conducted a domestic enquiry. Notice of enquiry was issued to the 2nd respondent, on several dates and despite the same, the 2nd respondent failed to participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer, set the 2nd respondent ex-parte and submitted his Report on 22.12.2009, to the petitioner / Corporation, holding that the 2nd respondent was guilty of the charge. The petitioner / Corporation sent a show 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018cause notice to the 2nd respondent on 31.12.2010, calling for his explanation to the Enquiry Report, by annexing a copy of the Enquiry Report. The 2nd respondent did not submit his explanation to the Enquiry Report and thereafter, the 2nd show cause notice was issued on 28.02.2013, to the 2nd respondent calling for his explanation to the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. Even the said notice was refused by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner / Corporation passed the order of dismissal from service against the 2nd respondent on 25.06.2013. The petitioner / Corporation complied with the provisions of Section 33[2][b] of the ID Act, and applied for approval before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, in AP.No.200/2013. The 1st respondent dismissed the Approval Petition on the ground that the punishment imposed by the petitioner / Corporation on the 2nd respondent was disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the 2nd respondent. Challenging the dismissal of the Approval Application, the petitioner / Corporation has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018(4)Since the notice sent to the 2nd respondent was not served, the petitioner / Corporation was permitted to take paper publication and a notice was published in the Tamil Daily Newspaper, namely, Malai Malar, on 02.10.2025. Though the name of the 2nd respondent is printed in the Cause List, the 2nd respondent did not appear either in person or through any counsel. Therefore, the absence of the 2nd respondent is recorded and the writ petition is heard in his absence.(5)The learned counsel for the petitioner / Corporation submitted that the Labour Court exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by appraising the proportionality of punishment imposed by the petitioner / Corporation, instead of examining whether a prima facie case was made out. The learned counsel submitted that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to enter into the proportionality of punishment since the said issue was within the realm of the competent Court, before which the challenge to the dismissal order would be made. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside.5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018(6)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed on record.(7)The facts are undisputed. The point for consideration is whether the rejection of the Approval Application of the petitioner / Corporation by the 1st respondent / Labour Court, is valid and sustainable?(8)The Labour Court framed five issues in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lall Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Words reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004, which are as follows:-(1)cs;tprhuiz rl;lj;jpw;F epiyahizf;F cl;gl;Lk; ,aw;if epajpf;Fl;gl;Lk; elj;jg;gl;Ls;sjh?(2)ntiyePf;fj;jpw;Fhpa Kjy;epiy tHf;F (prima facie) cs;tprhuizapy; rl;lg;go Vw;Wf;bfhs;sf;Toa rhl;rpaj;jpd; (Evidence) mog;gilapy; epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>(3)kDjhuh; eph;thfk; vjph;kDjhuh; kPJ vLj;j ntiyePf;f eltof;if bjhHpyhsh; tpnuhj nghf;fpw;fhf gHpth';Fk; eltof;if my;yhky; cz;ikapy; bjhHpyhsp Fw;wthsp vd;w Kot[f;F te;Js;shuh>6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018(4)bjhHpyhspf;F xUkhj rk;gsk; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sjh>(5)kDjhuh; eph;thfk; bjhHpyhsp kPJ vLf;fg;gl;l eltof;ifapd; Xu';fkhfnth my;yJ Fwfpa fhyj;jpw;Fs;shfnth rk;ge;jg;gl;l mjpfhupapd; Kd; mDkjp tpz;zg;gk; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shuh>(9)The Labour Court found Issues No.1, 2, 4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner / Corporation and on issue No.3, the Labour Court found that the punishment imposed by the petitioner / Corporation was disproportionate to the nature of misconduct, (unauthorised absence).(10)It is settled proposition of law that the Labour Court while examining an Approval Application under section 33[2][b] of the I.D. Act cannot probe into the proportionality of punishment. From the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the nature and extent of enquiry permissible under Section 33[2][b] of the I.D Act, is limited. The Labour Court while dealing with an application under Section 33[2][b] has to check, 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018if proper domestic enquiry was conducted, whether prima facie case for according the approval was made out, whether the Principles of Natural Justice were followed, whether there was victimisation or unfair labour practise and whether the conditions prescribed under Section 33[2][b] and its proviso were satisfied or not. The Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33[2][b] of the I.D. Act cannot venture into the examination of the proportionality of punishment. The assessment of the proportionality of punishment is in the realm of Competent Court before which a reference is made under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, when a dispute is raised.(11)This Court is of the considered view that the order of the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law, since the finding is premised on the alleged disproportionality of punishment, a consideration wholly beyond the limited scope of enquiry under Section 33[2][b] of the ID Act.(12)In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find merit in the Writ Petition and hence the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court dated 12.09.2017, in AP.No.200/2013, is set aside. It is needless to state that 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018the 2nd respondent is at liberty to challenge the dismissal order, in a manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.13-10-2025APIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1.The Special DeputyCommissioner of Labour DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai2.P.Chandrasekar,Temporary Driver, Staff No.07DR600/ 13558/ Musiri Branch, Res. at Sukkampatti Po, Musiri Tk, Trichy Dt9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11999 of 2018N.MALA J.APWP No. 11999 of 2018AND WMP NO. 13977 OF 201813-10-202510