The Management of v. K Murali

Order The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Transport Corporation, challenging the rejection of approval petition filed by them. Page2 of 5

¶2Case of the petitioner Management is that the 1st respondent employee while on duty as driver on 08.07.2022 caused major fatal accident resulting in eight grievous injuries and seven fatal case, for which, charge memo was issued and after conducting proper domestic enquiry, the employee was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.07.2023 and simultaneously, an approval petition was filed in A.P.No.148 of 2023 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had dismissed the said Approval Petition vide Award dated

19.05.2025. Aggrieved by the rejection of the Approval Petition, the petitioner Management is before this Court.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent erroneously held that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a single day and that there was no prima facie evidence available against the 1st respondent employee. Therefore, it is contended that the reason for rejection is vexatious and warrants interference of this Court.

¶4Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the issue raised is no longer res integra and 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. The authority has Page3 of 5 interfered with the punishment order only on the ground that there was no eyewitness and observed that there is no prima facie evidence available to establish the case.

¶5Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record. Since no adverse order is passed against the 1st respondent, notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.

¶6A careful consideration of the entire records reveal that except for the Branch Manager, no witnesses were examined, and notably, no eyewitnesses were produced. Furthermore, no adequate opportunity was afforded to the employee to present his case. The enquiry having been conducted and concluded on the very same day constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the law laid down in Lala Ram Vs. DCM (cited supra). The Labour Court, therefore, rightly rejected the approval petition filed by the petitioner Management. The said order does not suffer any perversity and the rejection of the approval petition is fully justified and the same cannot be interfered with.

¶7In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed and the petitioner Management is directed to reinstate the 1st respondent employee in service Page4 of 5 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SK To The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour DMS Campus Teynampet Chennai-600 006 WPoNo.o10433oofo2026 M.DHANDAPANIoJ. sk WPoNo.o10433oofo2026 AND WMPoNO.o11303oOFo2026 17-03-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND WMP NO. 11303 OF 2026 The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) ltd., Cuddalore Region Cuddalore-607 002 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. K Murali 2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour DMS Campus Teynampet Chennai-600 006 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award passed in A.P.No.148 of 2023 dated 19-05-2025 on the file of the 2nd Respondent herein and QUASH the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.T Chandrasekaran For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Murthi, Government Advocate