MANAGEMENT OF METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHENNAI-DIVISION-I LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 13.11.1999 made in petition No.104 of 1995 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai-104, the first respondent herein and to quash the same.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation to quash the order, dated 13.11.1999, passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal in petition No.104 of 1995. The first respondent Industrial Tribunal, by its order, dated 13.11.1999, had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner Corporation, praying for an approval for the order dismissing the second respondent workman from service, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) IT has been submitted that the second respondent had been appointed as a Junior Assistant in the petitioner Corporation, with effect from 3.12.1977. While he was employed as a Senior Assistant in the Tickets and Cash section at K.K.Nagar Depot, he had absented himself from duty on and from 6.6.1993, without any prior intimation or permission, which amounts to a misconduct under Clause 25(vi) of the Certified Standing Orders of the corporation. Therefore, a charge memo, dated 11.11.1994, had been issued against the second respondent, which is as follows: "1. Respondent absented for duty from 6.6.1993 without prior permission which amounts to misconduct under Clause 25(vi) of Certified Standing Orders applicable to petitioner Corporation. 2. Because of the unauthorized absence of the respondent there was stalemate in the administration of the petitioner corporation which is a misconduct enumerated under Clause 25(xi) of the Certified Standing Orders."

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that he was terminated from service by an order, dated 13.2.1995. The charge against the second respondent was that he was absent from duty, from 6.6.1993 till an application had been filed by the petitioner Corporation before the first respondent INdustrial Tribunal, under Section 33(2)(b) of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of the dismissal order passed against the second respondent. The second respondent had resisted the approval petition raising various grounds. The second respondent had stated that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner Corporation had not been conducted fairly and properly following the principles of natural justice. Further, the witness produced by the petitioner Management, during the enquiry, is only the departmental representative. The second respondent had not been given an opportunity of being heard with regard to his past records referred to by the Management. Further, there has been a delay in filing of the application. Considering the contentions raised by the second respondent, the first respondent INdustrial Tribunal had rejected the approval petition filed by the petitioner Corporation. Pursuant to the order of the first respondent INdustrial Tribunal, the petitioner Management had permitted the second respondent to join in service, on 9.10.2000. However, the petitioner Management had not paid the backwages due to the second respondent from 6.6.1993 till 9.10.2000. IN such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.