High Court · 2025

W.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALAW.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam Region,NO.27, Railway Station New Road,Kumbakonam – 620 001. ... Petitioner Vs.1.M.Ramaiyan2.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,D.M.S. Campus, Anna Salai,Chennai. ... RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the orders dated 31.03.2021 in A.P.No.72/2013 passed by the second respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 23.03.2013 dismissing the first respondent from service.For Petitioner : Mr.C.SenapathiFor R1: Mr.K.V.Muthuvisakan, Legal Aid CounselFor R2: Mrs.M.Jayanthy, AGP 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021ORDER Challenge in this writ petition is made to the orders passed by the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in A.P.No.72/2013 dated 31.03.2021.2. The petitioner will be referred as “petitioner-corporation” and the first respondent as “workman”.3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows :The workman was working as a Driver in the petitioner/Corporation. While operating the bus on route No.478A of Thanjavur New Bus Stand to Pattukottai on 09.12.2010, the bus hit against a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the rider of the motorcycle. A charge memo was issued to the workman on 04.01.2011, for the misconduct of rash and negligent driving and causing the death of the rider of the motorcycle under Sections 24[13][a], 24[13][b], 24[27][a] and 24[40] of the Standing Orders of the petitioner/Corporation. The workman submitted his reply. However, as the reply was found to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner-corporation decided to conduct domestic enquiry In the domestic enquiry, the charges were held proved by the 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021Enquiry Officer. Therefore, a second show cause notice was issued to the workman on 20.02.2012 and thereafter, the workman was dismissed from service on 23.03.2013. On 26.03.2013, an approval application was filed before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, vide order dated 19.04.2018, dismissed the approval petition filed by the petitioner/Corporation. The petitioner/Corporation challenged the same before this Court in WP.No.17083/2019 and this Court, vide order dated 01.10.2020, allowed the writ petition by remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent thereafter considered the matter afresh and passed the impugned order on 31.03.2021, dismissing the approval petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner-corporation has filed the present writ petition.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on records.5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent was illegal and without proper appreciation of the materials on record. The learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent erred in substituting its own view over that of the enquiry officer, overlooking that he was only required to examine whether a prima facie case was made out. The learned counsel 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021further submitted that the impugned order deserved to be dismissed since it was perverse.6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, submitted that there was no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and therefore, it did not warrant any interference by this Court.7. The Labour Court following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalla Ram Vs DCM Chemical Works Limited reported in 1978(3)SCC 1 framed the following issues :i.Whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules / standing orders and principle of natural justice has been held?ii.Whether a prima facie case has been established in the domestic enquiry based on the legally acceptable evidence ?iii.Whether the employer had come to a bonafide conclusion that the employee was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice ?iv.Whether the employer had paid or offered to pay wages for one month to the employee ?4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021v.Whether the employer has simultaneously or within such reasonably short time as to form part of the same transaction applied to the authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken by him ?8.Upon consideration of the issues framed, the Labour Court found issues No.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner-Corporation and issues No.1 to 3 against the petitioner-Corporation. The Labour Court, on issue No.1, held that the domestic enquiry stood vitiated as it was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. It further found that the enquiry was completed without affording an opportunity to the workman to adduce evidence/witness on his side, thereby depriving him of reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Labour Court also found from the materials available on record, that the proceedings had been initiated solely on the statement of one P.R.Sankaran, Senior Assistant Engineer, who was not the competent person speak to the allegation of the accident, as he was not the eyewitness to the accident. 9.Except for the oral testimony of the said witness, the Labour Court noted that no documentary evidence had been produced by the petitioner-Corporation to substantiate the charge of accident. The Labour 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021Court observed that the petitioner/Corporation did not examine either the conductor of the bus or any of the passengers to substantiate the charge of causing accident levelled against the workman. The failure of the petitioner-Corporation to examine the independent witnesses, namely, the passengers and the conductor of the bus, who were the competent persons to speak on the aspect of the occurrence of the accident, was held to have materially prejudiced its case. From the materials on record, this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the conclusions of the Labour Court. The finding of the Labour Court that a prima facie case against the workman was not established, and that no material was produced to substantiate the allegation of causing accident, is reasonable and supported by the record.9.In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.11.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-Speaking orderdsn/AP6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14563 of 2021and W.M.P.No.15450 of 2021N.MALA, J.dsn/APToThe Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,D.M.S. Campus, Anna Salai,Chennai.W.P.No.14563 of 202125.11.20257/7