Madras High Court
WP/24175/2022 of C.Gangatharan Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport corporation on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 24175 of 2022 and
WMP.No.23158 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011404502022}
C.Gangatharan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, 37, Mettupalayam road, Coimbatore 43
2. The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport corporation
(Coimbatore) Limited,
37, Mettupalayam road, Coimbatore 43
3. The Assistant Manager (Personnel and Legal)
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Coimbatore) Limited, 37, Mettupalayam road, Coimbatore 43
4. The Tamil Nadu State Transport corporations Employees’ Pension Fund Trust, Rep. by its Administrator, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 2
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, praying to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 11.10.2017 in Pa.No. 1/ L3/ W.P. No. 22846/
2006/ TNSTC / Kovai/17 passed by the 2nd Respondent and the order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the 2nd Respondent in 1 /63/ Nipe 228446/ 2006/
TNSTC/ Kovai/ 2021 quash the same in so far as reducing the petitioner basic pay from Rs. 2,600/- to Rs.1,710/- in the starting scale of the conductor and denying and depriving the entire back wages from 19.01.1998 to 31.07.2012
and excluding the said period for calculation and payment of gratuity and pension and for a direction to the Respondents to restore his basic pay at Rs.2,600/- and to grant him pay revision, increments and review benefits up to the date of his retirement based on such restored pay, to pay the petitioner back wages with PF contributions for that period, to count the entire period of non- employment as service for calculation and payment of gratuity and pension along with his past service; to pay him the revised gratuity and pension, based on the correct basic pay to be arrived at as on the date of his retirement; to pay him the amounts payable under the family benefit fund scheme and post- retirement benefit scheme, the IRT contributions and the balance arrears of pensions, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for all the above benefits to be paid and paid belatedly, within a specified time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.D.Soundar Raj
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Sundara Vadanam
Standing Counsel for R1 to R3
Mr.C.S.K.Sathish for R4
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the imposition of the punishment dated 11.10.2017 and 23.01.2021.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has dismissed the petitioner from service. Against which, he raised an industrial dispute in ID.No.3 of 1990. However, the Industrial Tribunal has confirmed the order of the dismissal. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.22846 of 2006, wherein the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.04.2011 set aside the punishment of the dismissal and remitted back the matter to the first respondent to impose any other punishment except the dismissal from service. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner had imposed a punishment vide impugned order treating the petitioner as a fresh entrant and thereby, the petitioner's monetary benefit has been drastically affected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the standing order, there is no such punishment of treating it as a fresh entrant. Therefore, such punishment is ipso facto contrary to the standing order. Therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with.
3. The said condition was totally objected by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and would contend that even prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the impugned order was passed during 2017 itself. Therefore, there is a delay in filing writ petition. It is also his contention that since there was a delay in implementing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26.04.2011, they preferred a contempt petition. However, the Contempt Petition No.1038 of 2019 dated 26.09.2019, which was later on dismissed on account of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition to consider his representation. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner, if at all the petitioner has got any grievance in respect of the imposition of the punishment, the remedy is only available before the Industrial Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The said contention was reiterated by learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and also relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of P.Pichumani and Others Vs The Management of Sri Chakra Tyres Limited reported in 2004(3) CTC 1. The learned counsel submitted that since this being an industrial dispute, since the punishment was issued to a workman, if any dismissal under Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, there is a remedy available to the petitioner before the Labour Court. On account of availability of alternative remedy, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised numerous contentions, all the contentions were fall back upon the punishment imposed against him. Now, at this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel relies upon Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act. On reading of Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, the workman will have a right to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court only when there is a discharge or the dismissal. Whereas, in the case on hand, the punishment is not so. There is no dispute with regard to the nature of punishment and the fact that such punishment has not been defined in the Standing Orders under the category of punishment for misconduct. Therefore, it is well settled principle of law that whenever there is a misconduct, the employer can only impose a punishment in accordance with the
Standing Orders and not beyond the scope of the Standing Orders. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the punishment imposed against the petitioner treating him as a fresh entrant, though may be a discretion of the employer, while closely reading of the Standing Order, there is no such punishment. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment is not in accordance with the Standing Order.
7. It is made clear that even as per the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22846 of 2006, the guilt has already been proved. The remand order vide order dated 26.04.2011 is only upon the quantum of punishment. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that since the punishment imposed against the petitioner is not in accordance with the Standing Orders, this Court would like to interfere with the extent of the punishment and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to impose punishment in accordance with the Standing Orders of the 1st respondent and the above said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 24175 of 2022 and WMP.No.23158 of 2022 30-09-2026