MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VILLUPURAM DIVISION II LTD Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR CONCILIATION DMS COMPOUND TEYNAMPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vilupuram Division is the petitioner and the challenge is to an order passed by the first respondent under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to "as the Act") refusing to accord approval for the dismissal of the second respondent.

(2.) THE facts of the case being that the second respondent was a driver employed in the petitioner corporation and at the time of appointment he had produced a transfer certificate in proof of his educational qualification, which contained the seal of the Headmaster, Government High School Ussoor, bearing admission No.1231. Based on the such certificate, the second respondent was appointed and an undertaking was obtained from him stating that if any information given by him is found to be false, he would be terminated from service. THE transfer certificate was forwarded to the concerned school for verification of its genuineness and the Headmaster of the school informed that such certificate was bogus. Based on such information disciplinary action was initiated against the second respondent, domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found that the charges are proved. Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing a penalty of dismissal from service and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the second respondent was terminated by order dated 05.03.2004, since at the time of dismissal the issue relating to bogus was pending conciliation before the Commissioner of Labour, the petitioner sought for approval of the dismissal of the second respondent by filing the petition under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, before the first respondent. By the impugned order, the first respondent refused to grant approval.

(3.) THE learned counsel would further submit that non-examination of the Headmaster, who stated that the transfer certificate produced by the second respondent is bogus, is fatal to the proceedings and though the S.O., who investigated the case and the Headmaster who gave the letter Exhibit M-5 were available, were not produced for cross examination and therefore, it has to be necessarily held that there is no legal evidence in support the charge, since neither the Headmaster nor the security officer, who investigated the case were produced for cross examination. Further the learned counsel would submit that it was always open to the petitioner corporation to request the permission of the first respondent to lead evidence. However, this procedure was not resorted to by the management and therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the first respondent rejecting approval. THE learned counsel relied on the following Judgments in support of the above contention. Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. And Others [1999 8 SCC 582], B.Padmaiah Vs. THE Union of India and Others [2007 Writ L.R. page 7]. Finally, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the scope of interference of this Court on the findings of fact recorded by the first respondent especially in labour matters, is very limited and since the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, this Court would refuse to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the first respondent. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:- 1) Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd Vs. S.Viswanathan [2005 3 SCC 193], 2)Lakshmi Preceision Screws Ltd Vs. Ram Bahagat [2002 6 SCC 552] 3) Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Jolarpettai & Others [1996 2 LLJ page 597].