The Managment v. General Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Writ Petition(MD)No.8783 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.7108 of 2026 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Limited, Byepass Road, Madurai - 10.

.. Petitioner Vs General Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, National Employees Union (INTUC), Registration No.MDU/257, 3/4-A Pattukottai Kalyana Sundaram Street, Opp. to PRC Head Office, Bye Pass Road, Madurai.

..Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the learned Labour Court, Madurai pertaining to its impugned award in I.D.No.55 of 2017 dated 22.06.2022 and quash the same as illegal.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.SC.Herold Singh

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the award dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, in I.D. No. 55 of 2017. By the said award, the punishment imposed by the petitioner namely, reduction of the basic pay of the workman by two stages for a period of two years, with a further direction that the said period shall not count for increment was set aside.

2.The workman, while serving as a driver in the petitioner Corporation, was issued a charge memo alleging unauthorised absence for a period of twenty (20) days. The explanation submitted by the workman was found to be unsatisfactory, necessitating a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, upon completion of the enquiry, submitted a report holding that the charge against the workman stood proved. Based on the said report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the Union raised an industrial dispute under Sections 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The domestic enquiry was subsequently held to be fair and proper.

2/6

3.Before the Labour Court, the workman, represented by the Union, marked documents as Exs. W1 to W11, while the Management marked documents as Exs. M1 to M9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court passed the impugned award. Aggrieved thereby, the Management has filed the present writ petition.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5.It is not in dispute that, for the alleged period of unauthorised absence of 20 days, the workman produced medical certificates, marked as Ex. W3 (series), to establish that the absence was not wilful but on account of ill health. The Labour Court noted that although the medical certificates covering the period from 11.03.2012 to 09.05.2012 were rejected on administrative grounds, their genuineness was not disputed.

6.The Union further contended that there is no provision under the relevant Standing Orders permitting reduction of basic pay by two stages for a period of two years with denial of increments. In the 3/6

absence of any statutory provision or enabling clause in the Standing Orders, the imposition of such punishment lacks authority of law. The workman had also explained that his absence was due to severe back pain arising from a road traffic accident.

7.The findings of the Labour Court are based on appreciation of evidence on record. In the absence of any perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the said findings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8.In view of the above, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01.04.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn 4/6

To The Labour Court, Madurai.

5/6

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

skn Writ Petition(MD)No.8783 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.7108 of 2026 01.04.2026 6/6