LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-707

THE MANAGEMENT, TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD. Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, DMS COMPOUND AND ORS.

Decided On September 30, 2019
The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. Appellant
V/S
The Special Deputy Commissioner Of Labour, Dms Compound And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The approval petition No.51 of 2015 dated 12.05.2016 passed by the first respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent workman Mr.K.Srinivasan was working as a Driver in Valappady Branch of the petitioner's Corporation. The 2nd respondent did not report for his duty continuously from 03.06.2013 onwards without prior permission and without any prior intimation. As the misconduct is grave, as per Clause 16(E) of the Model Standing order of the petitioner Corporation, a Charge memo was issued to the 2nd respondent on 21.06.2013. The report was received from the Branch Manager of Valappady Branch and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry by affording opportunity to the workman concerned and the 2nd respondent was permitted to examine / cross examine the Management witnesses and also to peruse the required documents / records to defend his case. The Enquiry was conducted by following the Principles of Natural Justice and by providing opportunity to the 2nd respondent workman. The Enquiry officer submitted his report, holding that the charges against the 2nd respondent are held proved.

(3.) The wage disputed was pending on the file of the 1 st respondent in ref.No.C1/37589/2007 and the petitioner Management sought for Approval of the 1st respondent with regard to the dismissal of the 2nd respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the 2nd respondent has committed the similar offences of 15 occasions previously, for which, the following punishments were awarded to the 2nd respondent by the Management. Thus, adequate opportunity were granted to the workman to improve his conduct and in spite of that he remained unauthorisedly absent for about 812 days, against which, the enquiry was conducted, charges proved and the punishment of dismissal was imposed.