The General Manager, v. Thiru.S.Sekar, Driver. Dr2528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.364 of 2017 and WMP.No.397 of 2017 ---- The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Vazhuthareddy, Salamedu Villupuram Region Villupuram-605 602.
..Petitioner Vs 1.S.Sekar 2.The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour D.M.S.Compound Chennai-6 ..Respondents Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent made in A.P.No.257/2012 dated 12.10.2015 and to quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For Petitioner : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muralidharan for R1 R2- Authority- No appearance
ORDER
The Transport Corporation/Management is the petitioner herein. Challenging the rejection of Approval Petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The 2nd respondent/Authority has rejected the approval on the ground that one month wages has not been paid in terms of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that there was a revision of Dearness Allowance with effect from 01.07.2012 and that the employee was dismissed on 20.09.2012.
3. It is no doubt true that there was a Government Order passed in G.O.362 dated 05.10.2012, granting retrospective revision of wages to other co-employees, who worked with the Workman. It is to be noted that the Workman was dismissed from service on 20.09.2012, prior to issuance of the aforestated Government Order. Therefore, it is apparent that at the time of passing of dismissal order, there was no revision at all and the Management cannot be expected to pay additional amount on the presumption that there would be a revision of wages. However, the Management has now stated that if there is any shortfall of the amount payable to the Workman, it would be paid to him.
4. It is not the case of the Workman that the Government Order with regard to revision of wages had been passed even before the order of dismissal and the Management had paid one month wages without taking into account the said revision and therefore, the one month wages paid to the Workman on 20.09.2012 on the basis of his last drawn wages is perfectly correct, as G.O.362 dated 05.10.2012 was not in existence on the said date. Hence, the finding of the Authority in rejecting the Approval Petition on the ground that there is shortage of amount in respect of one month wages, cannot be accepted.
5. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent/Authority dated 12.10.2015 in A.P.No.257 of 2012, is set aside. It is open to the Management to file a petition for appropriate relief, as against the order of dismissal of approval petition and raise all the grounds. It is needless to mention that the period during which the writ petition is pending needs to be excluded from the date of filing the petition till the copy of the order is made ready for the purpose of computation of limitation period. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nvsri To The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour D.M.S.Compound Chennai-6
+1cc to Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, Advocate SR.72213 +1cc to Mr.R.Muralidharan, Advocate SR.71991 WP.364 of 2017 BS(CO) CB(01/11/2019)