Madras High Court
The Management vs A.Srinivasan on 29 August, 2019
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.08.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.26281 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
The Management
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Region,
Kancheepuram
rep.by its General Manager ... Petitioner
Vs
1.A.Srinivasan
2.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour
(Conciliation)
DMS compound, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ or order or direction, particularly in the
nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent
made in A.P.No.107 of 2011 dated 14.05.2013 and to quash the same
by granting Approval for the dismissal of the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Antony Arockiaraja
For Respondents: Mr.N.Sundaramoorthy for R1
Mr.H.Imthiaz Ahmed for R2
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed by the Management challenging the order of the authority dated 14.05.2013 in rejecting the Approval Petition on the ground that the punishment is harsh. The authority has interfered with the punishment order only on the ground that there was no eyewitness and observed as to whether there is a prima facie evidence available to establish the case. The Apex Court has laid down the principles under which the authority / Labour Court can go into the issue with regard to any Approval Petition filed by the Management in the case of Lala Ram Vs. DCM reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004.
2. The case of the Management would have been accepted if there was no written complaint at all, but in this case, there was a written complaint, which was not produced before the authority. Though the finding of the authority that the complainant need to be examined, it may not be correct, even the written complaint is not required to establish the charges. But once the documents are produced and marked as Exhibits in a domestic enquiry, it is the duty cast upon the employer to produce it before the authority. The authority has scrutinized the documents filed in support of the petition under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and observed as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 3 kDjhuu; jug;g p y; jhf;fy; bra;a g; g L s ; s tprhuiz eltof;if Fw p g ; g[f s; Ex.A6 I gupr P yi d bra;a g; gl;lJ/ gupr P y pj;jjpy; K:d; W gaz pf s p l k p U e ; J bg w g; gl;l thf;F K:yk; c s;tprh uiz a p y; ep u;thfj;jpd; jug;gp y; jhf;fy; bra;a g; gl;L s; s J/ Mdh y; nkw;fz;l K:d; W thf;F K:y';fs; ,k;kd; wj;jpd; Kd;g[ jhf;fy; bra;a g; gltpy;iy/ vdnt gaz pf s ; m s pj;j thf;F K:yj;jpy; vd;d brhy;y p a[ s; s b j d; gij m w p a ,aytpy;iy/
3. As there was no documents produced which were part of the domestic enquiry, the authority has rejected the contention of the Management with regard to the second issue framed and rejected the Approval Petition. I find there is no error on the face of the record, as the scope of authority to interfere with the order under Section 33 (2) (b) is very limited.
4. The writ petition stands dismissed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.08.2019 sk http://www.judis.nic.in 4 S.VAIDYANATHAN.,J sk To The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) DMS compound, Chennai.
W.P.No.26281 of 2014
29.08.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in