1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P(MD) No.5183 of 2011 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2011 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Karaikudi Division – 3, Karaikudi. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Thenampet, Chennai – 6. (Petition against R1 is dismissed for default on 02.08.2011) 2.A.Malaichamy .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the award dated 08.05.2009 in Approval Petition No.175/04 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and to pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thilakkumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Subramanian No.2 O R D E R The petitioner is the State Transport Corporation. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent viz., the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai made in approval petition No.175/04 dated 08.05.2009. By the impugned order, the first respondent dismissed the petitioner's approval petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 2. When the matter came up on 29.04.2011, this Court ordered notice regarding admission and granted interim stay. On notice, the contesting respondent has entered appearance through counsel. When the matter came up on 20.06.2011, this Court has directed the petitioner's management to pay last drawn wages to the second respondent under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also to pay the arrears from 08.05.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the petitioner/management has complied with the order or not. In any event the jurisdiction of the authority granting approval under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is very limited and he has to find out whether jurisdictional aspect of the application is fulfilled viz., issuance of notice or payment in lieu of notice and if an application was filed simultaneously along with the termination, even then the authority has to go into the question as to whether there has been any legal evidence to hold the workman is guilty. 4. The contesting respondent was employed as a conductor and he was dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry. The charge against the workman was that he misappropriated Rs.5.00 by not issuing proper ticket to a passenger. The authority before whom the approval petition was filed came to the conclusion that the question of misappropriating fund against the passenger arises only when the passenger does not possess a valid ticket and fault could be attributed to the passenger. While the passenger was imposed with the fine and the fault was attributed to the conductor and therefore the authority held that the evidence let in in the domestic enquiry was totally insufficient and it was perverse and there was no prima facie case based upon any legal evidence. Even on the technical aspect of the case, the authority found that while the workman was informed that he will be paid one month pay amount of Rs.7049.80 by issuing cheque and when the cheque was deposited in his account in Canara Bank, the actual amount deposited was only Rs.6979.80 and a sum of Rs.70/- was deducted from the cheque amount, it cannot be held that there was an actual payment of one month pay in lieu of notice. Therefore on the ground of technical non- compliance also approval was refused. Reliance was placed upon the Judgment in Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Labour Court and another reported in 2002-III-LLJ-765. A perusal of the order passed by the authority does not call for any interference in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's Corporation will have to suffer for a defective application even otherwise on merits. When the authority has gone into the issue and found that there was no legal evidence, this Court does not find that any interference is called for. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Thenampet, Chennai-6 +1 CC to Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Advocate (SR.No.36404) +1 CC to Mr.M.Subramanian, Advocate (SR.No.35806) W.P(MD) No.5183 of 2011 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2011 smn 14.10.2011 NSV/3.11.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/