1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/8/2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.9387 of 2011 B. Karuppiah .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd rep. By its Managing Director Madurai. 2. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd Dindigul Region rep. By its General Manager Dindigul. 3. The Branch Manager Kodaikanal Branch Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd Dindigul Region Batlagundu Dindigul District. [3rd Respondent cause title impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 22.08.2011 and made in WP.9387 of 2011] .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join duty at the third respondent branch and further directing the respondents to treat the period from 24/6/2011 to the date of permitting him to join/resume his duty as his service period for all purpose and also to pay him all the benefits including the wages for the period. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen AGP - - - - - O R D E R When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.Arunachalam, counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is a typographical error in mentioning the branch of the third respondent and it should been read as 'Kodaikanal branch' instead of 'Batlagundu branch'. Registry is directed to carry out the said amendment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that, ever since, the date of entry into Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Madurai, the first respondent as Driver, i.e., from 22/9/1996, he has been discharging his duties, without any blemish. When he reported to duty on 25/6/2011 before the Branch Manager, Kodaikanal branch, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul District, the petitioner has not been permitted to join duty. He has been orally informed that the petitioner has been transferred from the third respondent branch. According to the petitioner, no order has been served. Though the petitioner has sent a representation dated 8/8/2011 to the respondents 1 and 2, requesting them to permit the petitioner to join duty and treat the period from 24/6/2011 as duty for all purposes, no orders have been passed so far and in such circumstances, he has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner has further contended that, denial of work from 24/6/2011 amounts to illegal lay-off, as per Section 25 M of the Industrial Disputes Act and that, it is liable to be punished under Section 25 Q of the Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. Section 25 Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, is extracted hereunder:- Penalty for lay-off and retrenchment without previous permission – Any employer who convenes the provisions of Section 25 M or of Section 25 – N shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 6. 25 M of the Industrial Disputes Act, is extracted hereunder:- "Prohibition of lay-off:- (1) No workman (other than a badli workman or a casual workman) whose name is borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies shall be laid off by his employer except [with the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the specified authority), obtained on an application made in this behalf, unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power or to natural calamity, and in the case of a mine, such lay-off is due also to fire, flood, excess of inflammable gas or explosion.] (2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended lay-off and a copy of such application shall also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed manner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (3). Where the workmen (other than badli workmen or casual workmen) of an industrial establishment, being a mine, have been laid off under sub-section (1) for reasons of fire, flood or excess of inflammable gas or explosion, the employer, in relation to such establishment, shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of commencement of such lay-off, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the appropriate Government or the specified authority for permission to continue the lay-off. 4. Where an application for permission under sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) has been made, the appropriate Government or the specified authority, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the persons interested in such lay- off, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons for such-off, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen. (5) Where an application for permission under sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) has been made and the appropriate Government or the specified authority does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days. ...... 7. When the petitioner himself has contended that the denial of work to him from 24/6/2011 amounts to illegal lay-off, the remedy open to the petitioner, is to approach the forum provided under the Industrial Disputes Act and establish his case, when there is an alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. mvs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Managing Director Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd Madurai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 2. The General Manager Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd Dindigul Region Dindigul. 3. The Branch Manager Kodaikanal Branch Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Dindigul Region, Dindigul District. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.9387 of 2011 Dated:22.08.2011 4P/4C RPB 25/8/2011 [I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/