The General Manager, v. The Special Deputy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P.Nos.15808 of 2017 & 5407 of 2022 The General Manager, The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Under Section 33 (2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) Chennai.

2.N.Ayyappan ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.134 of 2013 dated 16.03.2015 and to quash the same as illegal.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramanlal Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Gauthamaraj For R1 : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.Malaikannu

ORDER

The order passed by the 1st respondent in Approval Petition in A.P.No.134 of 2013 dated 16.03.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner is Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the second respondent-workman ended with the punishment of removal from service. Consequently, the writ petitioner/Management filed an Approval Petition under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent/competent authority framed issues, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 2/5

Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works Ltd [(1978) 3 SCC 1] and made findings.

3. With reference to the findings, there was a delay of 4 years and 4 months in filing the Approval Petition and it was unexplained. Therefore, the 1st respondent formed an opinion that the Approval Petition is liable to be rejected. Though the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the rules of natural justice, the authority found that it is a case of victimization and one month salary was not paid and there was a delay of about 4 years and 4 months in filing the Approval Petition.

4. Unexplained delay cannot be condoned. In other words, such a long delay, which is not explained, is to be construed as uncondonable. Therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order of rejection of Approval Petition passed by the first respondent. Beyond the findings in respect of the enquiry proceedings, the long delay in filing an Approval Petition is vital in the present case. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner/Management. 3/5

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.11.2022 Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes kak To 1.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Under Section 33 (2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) Chennai.

4/5

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

kak 25.11.2022 5/5