V. PALANI Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge reversing the order of the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act in Approval Petition No. 386 of 2003 dtd. 1/8/2005 wherein approval of dismissal of appellant-workman was rejected.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as a Conductor in the 1st respondent Transport Corporation and he absented from duty from 28/7/2001 to 14/8/2001 without any prior permission. Based on charge memo dtd. 18/8/2001 and finding that the explanation of the appellant dtd. 29/8/2001 was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dtd. 28/12/2001 holding that the charges were proved. Meanwhile, pending enquiry, the workman resumed duty on 4/9/2001. Based on the Enquiry Report and taking into account the past conduct of the workman, a second show cause notice dtd. 15/1/2002 was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The workman did not submit any explanation in respect thereof. Thereafter, the appellant-workman was issued with an order dtd. 4/2/2003 dismissing him from service.

(3.) As an industrial dispute between the 1st respondent Transport Corporation and the unions of workmen was pending before the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent had filed a petition before the 2nd respondent for approval in respect of dismissal of the appellant-workman under Sec. 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act") and the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 1/8/2005. As stated supra, aggrieved by the rejection, the writ petition has been preferred and the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.