MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Anna Transport Corporation, now reconstituted as the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the first respondent/Industrial Tribunal made in Approval Petition No.111 of 1992 dated 16.11.1996, the present writ petition has been filed. It is seen from the records that the second respondent/workman who was employed as a driver in the petitioner Corporation was continuously absent from 25.07.1991 without prior intimation. Since it would amount to a misconduct under clause 19(1)(f) of the Certified Standing Orders, the workman was charge sheeted and an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, he admitted the charge and chose not to cross examine the witnesses. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was given and after getting his reply, he was dismissed from service. Since at that time an industrial dispute was pending between the workman and the Management with reference to Bonus as I.D.No.62 of 1982, an Approval Petition was filed before the first respondent Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking for approval from the Tribunal.

(3.) THE counsel brought to the notice of this Court the recent Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Management, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. N.Balakrishnan reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3595. THE learned counsel brought to the notice the specific reference in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 from the said judgment, which are extracted below: "19.Ordinarily, although sub-clause (5) of Clause (17) of the Certified Standing Orders is required to be complied with, the same, in our opinion, would not mean that in a given situation, there cannot be any deviation therefrom. In a case where dismissal or removal of service is to be ordinarily followed, e.g. in a case of grave misconduct like misappropriation, strict enforcement of the rule may not be insisted upon. When, we say so, we are not oblivious of the law that an executive agency is ordinarily bound by the standard by which it professes its actions to be judged. [See Harjit Singh & another v. THE State of Punjab & Another [2007) (3) SCALE 553]. But where a procedural provision merely embodied the principles of natural justice, in view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of Patiala (supra), the question as to whether the principle has been followed or not, will depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. [See Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others [2007(3)SCALE 517]. 20. It will be useful to note that in State of Punjab and Others v. Sukhwinder Singh [(1999)SCC (L&S)1234], this Court has held that the words "gravest act of misconduct" occurring in Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules need not be used in the order of punishment, as it can be found out from the factual matrix obtaining in each case."