IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:15.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.3482 of 2004 K.Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Rep. By its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. 2.The General Manager (Administration), Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to his order No.13482/Sa.Bi.Oh.Na/6/98 dated 18.08.2001 confirming the order dated 04.05.2001 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.D.Nellaiappan For Respondents :Mr.G.Munirathnam ORDER The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, K.Sakthivel, challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the General Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation, dismissing the petitioner from service as confirmed by the 1st respondent. 2. When the petitioner was working as a driver, it was found that the petitioner has obtained the order of appointment by concealing his educational qualification, as though he has passed 8th standard. After receiving the complaint, the petitioner was given show cause notice to explain the school certificate produced by the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which is not a genuine one. The petitioner also, in response to the charge memo dated 21.1.98, submitted his detailed explanation on 15.02.98 denying the allegation made against him. However, being not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted, in which, the petitioner took part and denied the allegation by refuting the charges made against him, stating that the certificates produced by him were genuine. However, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. Once again, a second show cause notice was issued along with the enquiry report calling upon him to submit his explanation. On receipt of the explanation, the 2nd respondent, being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, dismissed the petitioner from the service. Challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also affirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner to find out the genuineness of the certificate, was not properly conducted by producing the reliable certificates from the school. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent without strong reason, cannot stand to any good reason in law to support the order of dismissal. In his further submission, it was also urged that the appellate authority, while considering the correctness of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, has not even given any good reason as to how the order passed by the 2nd respondent, is acceptable by the appellate authority. 4. Refuting the argument of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, since the remedy lies before the Labour Court. The case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Whileso, the petitioner without exhausting the remedy by approaching the Labour Court to redress his grievance, consequent to the order of dismissal, has rushed to this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and on that basis prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. No doubt, the petitioner was working as a driver. During the course of his employment, it was found that the petitioner has not obtained order of appointment by producing genuine certificates. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted and after conducting enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 1st https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent. The 1st respondent, who is the appellate authority also after considering the order passed by the 2nd respondent, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order order passed by the 2nd respondent. As against that order, the petitioner should have approached the labour Court, since the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Without raising an Industrial Disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, which, according to this Court is an effective and efficacious remedy, wrongly rushed to this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, which cannot be espoused. In the enquiry, several witnesses were examined and documents were also relied upon by the department. The explanation given by the petitioner were considered on merits and a final order of dismissal has been passed based on the detailed enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. Thereupon, the petitioner should have raised an Industrial Dispute, as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, which according to me is an effective remedy, ought not to have filed the present writ petition. Further, it is also relevant to mention one more vital aspect that no specific ground has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to why, the alternative remedy provided under the statue has been bypassed. The remedy under the statue being an effective remedy, the petitioner without exhausting such remedy has rushed to this Court. In this view of this matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondents, since the petition filed by the petitioner does not carry any merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court, if so advised. No Costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. rkm To 1.The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. 2. The General Manager (Administration), Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Munirathnam, Advocate Sr 17532 + 1 cc to M/S.D.Nellaippan, Advocate, SR 17620 W.P.No.3482/2004 KLT (CO) RH (5.4.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/