THE MANAGEMENT, STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION (TAMIL NADU) LTD. Vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, (CONCILIATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the petitioner State Express Transport Corporation at Chennai. In this writ petition, the petitioner sought to challenge an order passed by the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai made in Approval Petition No. 286 of 2004 dated 11.4.2006. By the impugned order, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner management for the grant of approval of termination of the second respondent. The writ petition was admitted on 24.4.2008. Pending the writ petition, in the application for an interim injunction, only notice was ordered. On notice being served, the second respondent filed M.P. No. 1 of 2010 seeking to vacate the alleged interim order dated 24.8.2009 and also for a direction to pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17 -B of the I.D. Act in M.P. No. 2 of 2010. But no orders have been passed in those applications.

(2.) IT is seen from the records that the contesting second respondent was employed as a driver in the petitioner corporation. He remained absent unauthorisedly from 22.5.2003. A charge memo, dated 6.6.2003 was given to him. After conducting a domestic enquiry, a second show cause notice dated 1.12.2003 was issued was issued to him. After getting an explanation from the second respondent, by an order dated 14.10.2004, he was dismissed from service. Since at the relevant time, the conciliation proceedings were pending before the authority, the petitioner corporation filed an approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act which is a condition precedent. They have paid Rs. 6069/ - being the one month's pay and also filed simultaneously an application for the grant of approval. The one month pay was not calculated properly. There was a shortfall of Rs. 305/ - in calculating the one month pay. Long after the petition was filed, the said amount of Rs. 305/ - was sent to the workmen only on 23.3.2005. The approval petition was numbered as A.P. No. 286 of 2004 and notice was ordered to the second respondent. The second respondent filed a counter statement dated 26.9.2005. The authority after considering the enquiry proceedings came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The order of dismissal was not based upon any legal evidence and the management had also not paid the exact one month's wages along with the petition for approval. The application was also not filed simultaneously.

(3.) IN respect of not filing the application simultaneously, the authority held as follows: