← Library
Madras High CourtWP/7954/2019disposed of

The Management, v. P.Rajkumar

2021-08-01Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.08.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.NO.7954 OF 2019 AND W.M.P.NO.8559 OF 2019 The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited Represented by its General Manager Trichy Region, Trichy 620 001.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.P.Rajkumar S/o.R.Ponnusamy Driver, Staff No.5067/91 DR2052 Perambalur Branch Residing at No.11A, Subramaniya Bharahiyar Street Nirmala Nagar, Perambalur Post and District.

2.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent in Approval Petition No.296 of 2014 and quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 13.11.2014 dismissing the 1st respondent from service.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan for R1 Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, G.A for R2

ORDER

The petitioner / Management has come forward with the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent / Authority in Approval Petition No.296 of 2014, and for a consequential direction to the 2nd Respondent to approve the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by them, dismissing the 1st Respondent / employee from service. 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Management has submitted that the Authority has rejected the Approval Petition on the ground that there was a shortfall in payment of monthly salary to the employee. Though the dismissal order was passed as early as on 13.11.2014 and the revision of wages came into effect only on 10.10.2014, the Government Order to that effect has been communicated to the employer belatedly.

He has further submitted that, no employee can demand that the revision of wages should be given effect to immediately or the employer, subsequent to the receipt of the Government Order should postpone the order to be passed. He has also submitted that the reason adduced by the Authority for rejection of Approval Petition is not sustainable, as the wages can be revised retrospectively after due receipt of the communication from the Government, in respect of the Government order dated 10.10.2014 and the shortfall if any, in the wages can also be subsequently adjusted. Hence, it was prayed that the order of rejection of the Approval Petition passed by the Authority, is not justified and the same requires interference by this Court. 3.

Learned counsel for the employee contented that since the Approval Petition has been filed under Section 33(2)(b) of I.D.Act, 1947, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to follow the procedures before dismissing an employee. In this case, besides shortfall of payment of wages, the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and therefore, the Award of the Authority is perfectly valid and needs no interference by this Court.

4.Heard both sides.

5.The Transport Corporation is a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and Industrial Dispute can be raised by the employee even after the Approval Petition is ordered. Admittedly, the past records of the employee is bad, and normally, this Court will not interfere with the order of rejection of the Authority. Even though the employee remained absent for 773 days, the punishment imposed for such absence is very harsh. However, in this case, in order to shorten the life of litigation and to give a quietus to the matter, this Court is constrained to modify the order of rejection of Approval

Petition passed by the Authority. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner / Corporation to reinstate the 1st respondent in service on or before 01.10.2021 on the basis of the last drawn wages at the time of dismissal. It is made clear that the employee will not be entitled to any continuity of service and will also be not entitled to any other benefits for the purpose of notional fixation. There is no need for the employer to contribute amount towards Provident Fund for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement of the employee. The denial of benefits mentioned supra itself is sufficient for the misconduct committed by the employee.

Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar kas To The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai.

+1cc to Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan, Advocate, S.R.No.37245 +1cc to Mr.D.Venkatachalam, Advocate, S.R.No.37100 W.P.No.7954 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.8559 of 2019 MG(CO) RLP(27/09/2021)