BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/03/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.1730 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.1911 of 2006 S.A.Kani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Division II, Bye Pass Road, Madurai. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Division II, No.19, Trivandrum Road, Vannarpet, Tirunelveli - 627 003. ... Respondents PRAYER This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service of the respondent Transport Corporation with back wages along with all attendant benefits including the continuity of service, etc. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Devaraj ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader. :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. By consent of both the
counsel, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
2. This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in the services of the respondent-Corporation with
backwages along with other benefits. It is admitted case that the petitioner
was appointed as a Driver by the first respondent. He was working under the
second respondent and was dismissed from service on 31.12.2004. Petition under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of the said
dismissal was filed and the same was rejected by the authority under the
Industrial Disputes Act, namely, the Joint Commissioner of
Labour(Conciliation),Chennai by order dated 01.06.2005 in the Approval Petition
No.1/2005 filed by the second respondent herein. It is pursuant to the notice
of the said approval petition, the petitioner has made representation, and
inspite of that, the petitioner has not been reinstated.
3. On this aspect, the Supreme Court in M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Vs. Neethivilangan reported in 2001(3)CTC 372 has categorically held
that the rejection of the approval petition filed by the authority under law
will amount to treating that there was no valid dismissal order in effect and
the employer is bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give
him all the consequential benefits.
4. In view of the legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court in the
above judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent cannot have any
objection. The learned Special Government Pleader also submits that he needs
sufficient time to file counter. While admittedly no further proceedings have
been initiated as against the rejection order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act,
I do not think that the filing of the counter will serve any purpose. However,
the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that as against the
rejection order passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, the Corporation is taking steps to file further proceedings challenging
the same. The filing of the writ petition will not take away the right of the
petitioner which has been conferred on him as per the judgment of the Supreme
Court.
Admittedly, there is no stay of the order passed by the authority under Section
33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. In view of the same, the writ petition stands allowed. There will be
a direction against the respondents to reinstate the petitioner by treating the
dismissal order dated 31.12.2004 as non-est and pay all consequential benefits.
No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.
sms
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Madurai Division II,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Madurai Division II, No.19,
Trivandrum Road,
Vannarpet,
Tirunelveli – 627 003.