• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager
• Smartbuy

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth
• Events 2007

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

Our Legal Correspondent

Chennai, Aug. 15

The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, refusing to grant approval to the proposal of the TN State Transport Corporation (Madurai Divn II) to terminate the services of a workman on a charge of unauthorised absence from duty.

In response to the Corporation’s approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act in view of a pending dispute on bonus, the Tribunal rejected the request to terminate the workman’s service. Hearing the writ petition of the Transport Corporation challenging the decision of the Tribunal refusing approval to the proposal, Mr Justice K. Chandru held that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in refusing to grant approval on an irrelevant ground.

The Tribunal did not keep in its mind the parameters of Section 33(2)((b) of the ID Act, while dealing with the application of the petitioner Corporation.

The workman (G. Ramakrishnan), who joined the service on March 16, 1971, was charge-sheeted on July 13, 1991, for being absent and without notice from June 9, 1991. Since the workman’s explanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted.

The Enquiry Officer found the charge against the workman as proved. The Corporation decided to terminate his service from December 11, 1991.

The Tribunal by its order of May 29,1998, rejected the request to grant approval to the dismissal of workman.

The Tribunal, the Judge said, did not go into the validity of the enquiry and its findings.

On the contrary, it held that the workman had completed 20 years’ of service, and therefore, he was eligible to go under voluntary retirement (VR), as per the Government order.

The approach of the Tribunal, the Judge further said, was wholly impermissible, especially when the petitioner Corporation had passed a reasoned order.

The power under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act conferred on the Tribunal was limited in its scope.

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of Tribunal would stand set aside, the Judge ruled.

More Stories on : Human Resources | Courts/Legal Issues | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line