WA/783/2024 of G. VENKATESAN Vs THE CHAIRMAN on 22 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J.) The unsuccessful petitioner before the Writ Court is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant / writ petitioner filed W.P.No.13419 of 2020 for the following relief: ‘’…..seeking Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from the date of dismissal i.e., from 08.02.2005 and pay the consequential benefits along with back wages by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 21.05.2012, 22.04.2014, 14.03.2016 and 20.05.2019’’.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed as a Driver in the second respondent Corporation during 1993. On 04.05.2004, while driving a vehicle, bearing Regn. No. TN 04 OK 6414 on Route No. 791, he met with an accident. Following the accident, a domestic inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 08.02.2005. Since an industrial dispute was pending before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), the second respondent filed Approval Petition No. 24 of 2005 in respect of the petitioner's dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The Joint Commissioner dismissed the application for approval on 24.01.2006. While dismissing the application, the Joint Commissioner held that the Management had not followed the principles of natural justice, that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved, and that the mandatory requirements of Section 33(2)(b) were not followed. In spite of this, the petitioner was not reinstated for more than two and a half years. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1784 of 2008 before this Court. On 27.03.2008, this Court passed the following order: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the rejection order dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Chennai in Approval Petition No.24 of 2005 filed by the respondent herein, this Court is of the view that the respondent has to be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4. The second respondent filed W.P. No. 6683 of 2008 against the order of the Joint Commissioner rejecting the approval, which was dismissed on 13.06.2011. Several representations were submitted; however, the petitioner was not reinstated into service. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court once again by way of writ petition in W.P. No. 16848 of 2019 for reinstatement. The said petition was dismissed while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a contempt petition. The petitioner subsequently filed Contempt Petition No. 23

of 2020 before this Court. On 03.03.2020, this Court dismissed the contempt petition with the following order:

3. Firstly, when this Court in its earlier order dated 27.03.2008 passed a Writ Petition No.1784 of 2008 gave a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, it is not known why the petitioner kept quiet for about eleven long years. Since the limitation provided under the Act for initiating contempt proceedings is only one year, the explanation offered by the petitioner that he was renewing his request for eleven long years, cannot be accepted, for the reason that in the meanwhile, the period of limitation prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceedings, also stood expired.

4. Secondly, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, relying upon the counter affidavit, taking a stand that the petitioner, while serving as temporary daily wage Driver in the respondent Corporation, on 04.05.2004, due to his rash and negligent driving caused a gruesome accident dashing against the Mahindra Van coming in the opposite direction and resultantly, caused a fatal accident killing six persons. It is at this stage, replying to the above the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not serving as daily wage Driver, but he was a regularised employee.

5. Be that as it may. When the petitioner, due to his act of rash and negligent driving, had caused the death of six innocent persons, the respondent is right in denying employment to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the contempt petition, for the reason that it is highly belated. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner to seek for reinstatement is also not satisfactory. Hence, the contempt petition fails and it is dismissed

5. In the said accident, six persons died due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The Writ Court, on the basis of the pleadings of both parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement as he approached the Court belatedly. The Contempt Petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner approached the Court after a delay of 11 years. The petitioner was 53 years of age at the time the dispute was being decided, and despite having obtained the order in the year 2008, he failed to take steps to execute the order for reinstatement.

6. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

7. Initially, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2008 for a mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him pursuant to the order in Approval Petition No. 24 of 2005, dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai. The order was passed on

27.03.2008, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. Despite the order, the petitioner did not take any steps to implement it and suddenly, after four years, submitted a representation for its implementation. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in 2019 by way of W.P. No. 16848 of 2019 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents "to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f. the date of dismissal, i.e., 08.02.2005, and pay consequential benefits along with back wages." The Writ Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file a contempt petition. Contempt Petition No. 23 of 2020 was subsequently filed and dismissed with the observation that "when the petitioner, due to his act of rash and negligent driving, had caused the death of six innocent persons, the respondent is right in denying employment to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the contempt petition for the reason that it is highly belated. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner in seeking reinstatement is also not satisfactory." This order in the contempt petition dated 03.03.2020 became final, as the petitioner did not challenge it. Following the dismissal of the contempt petition, another writ petition was filed, which forms the subject matter of the present writ appeal. There is an explicit finding in the contempt petition refusing reinstatement, which has attained finality. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief before this Court. The Writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petition, and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To

1. The Chairman State Express Transport Corporation and Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Managing Director, M/s. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli Pre-delivery judgment in WA No. 783 of 2024 24-09-2026