The General Manager v. The Special Deputy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.04.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.No.29405 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2013, 1 & 2 of 2015 The General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai.

2.G.Kolappadhas (died) 3.Ajitha 4.K.A.Archana 5.K.A.Dhivya ... Respondents [R3 to R5 substituted as LRs of deceased 2nd respondent vide order dated 11.03.2022 made in W.M.P.No.24114 of 2021 in W.P.No.29405 of 2013] Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.189 of 2010 dated 27.12.2012 and to quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murthi For R1 : Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader R2 : Died For R3 to R5 : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the 1st respondent in A.P.No.189 of 2010, dated 27.12.2012. 2.Pending the writ petition, the 2nd respondent (employee) expired and his legal heirs have been substituted as parties. 3.On charges of unauthorised absence for the period from 14.03.2008, the deceased employee was subjected to domestic enquiry. Based on the Enquiry Officer's report that the charges were proved, the petitioner Management had dismissed the employee (deceased) from services, through an order dated 05.10.2010, and on the same day, they had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking for approval of the action taken. The authority, through the impugned order dated 27.12.

2012, rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the procedure contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalla Ram v. DCM Chemical Works reported in AIR 1978 (C) 1004 was not followed and holding that the employee (deceased) was not paid with one month full wages; that there was no prima facie case before the Enquiry Officer; and that the enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4.The petitioner Corporation, in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, have raised a ground touching upon the factual aspects, which requires to be substantiated before the authority.

As per the ground raised in the present writ petition, the petitioner claims that the onus to explain that the employee (deceased) had given a proper leave letter was on him and therefore, the order of the authority is incorrect.

5.Insofar as the enquiry notice is concerned, no specific ground has been raised to the effect that notice was properly served and that the copies of the summons were marked before the authority. The authority has specifically found in the impugned order that, though the summons were claimed to be issued to the employee (deceased) on 07.04.2009, 29.04.2009 and 27.05.2009, the same have not been marked in the proceedings. This apart, the authority has found that the employee (deceased), though had given a letter explaining the reason for his absence stating that he was ill and that he was admitted in the hospital from 21.07.2008 onwards, this aspect has not been considered by the petitioner Corporation and also since the enquiry notices were also not sent to him, there was no prima facie case before the Enquiry Officer. 6.

This Court is in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the 1st respondent authority.

wages was paid to the concerned workman at the time of dismissal; whether a prima facie case was available before the Enquiry Officer; and whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, among other stipulations.

7.It is in accordance with these procedures stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the authority had also passed the present impugned order rejecting the action initiated by the petitioner Corporation by dismissing the employee (deceased) from services. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

8.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

9.In view of the dismissal, the legal heirs of the deceased employee shall be entitled for all the DCRG benefits, including Family Pension. The petitioner Corporation shall pass appropriate orders, for disbursement of the DCRG benefits including Family Pension, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1.The General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

2.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai.

+1 cc to Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, Advocate Sr.NO. 24978 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 25758 W.P.No.29405 of 2013 PM(CO) A.SK(27/04/2022)