WA.SR/110960/2026 of THE MANAGEMENT TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATI Vs M MANI on 10 September 2026

ORDER

(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) For causing an accident due to negligence, the first respondent-driver was dismissed from service, after the enquiry and the Management sought approval for the dismissal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, in A.P.No.332 of 2012, after considering the material placed, declined to grant approval for the dismissal of the first respondent. Challenging the order of declining approval, W.P.No.34216 of 2022 was filed by the Management. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, dated 13.12.2024, ordering reinstatement, but, restricting the back-wages to 40%. The operative portion of the order in the said writ petition reads as below:- “12.Now coming to the reliefs which were granted, nothing

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:16 pm )

further was stated in the order. The legal effect of the refusal of the approval is that the workman would have been deemed to have been continued in the service and it can be seen that the superannuated and would be deemed to be retired from the service with effect from 31.05.2018. In that scenario, considering the fact that the dismissal was of the year 2012 and the refusal for the approval was only in the year 2021 i.e., much after the attainment of the age of superannuation by the workman, this Court should also consider the question of back- wages. Therefore, only considering the long pendency of the Approval Petition and considering the fact that the workman had attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31.05.2018, I am of the view that the interests of justice will be served and both the interests of the workman as well as the management will be served if the back-wages from the date of suspension till the date of superannuation alone is restricted to 40% instead of the entire back-wages.

13. When this Court restricts the back-wages, it is only with reference to the payment of arrears and as far as the calculation of gratuity, increment, payment of the contribution towards the Provident Fund etc., are concerned, it will all be calculated/paid by taking into consideration the entire amount of wages/actual salary that would have been received by the workman had he been continued to be in work.

14. With the above observations regarding the payment of back- wages alone, being restricted to 40% and the workman be deemed to be retired from the service with effect from 31.05.2018, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a further direction to the petitioner management to disburse all the arrears to the workman within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a web-copy of this order without waiting for a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the arrears are not disbursed within the stipulated period of 12 weeks,

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:16 pm )

then,the same shall carry at the rate of 6% per annum from today. Similarly, by taking into account the entire wages, the contribution to the Provident Fund Authority and the other statutory authority shall also be made within the stipulated period of 12 weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

3. The Management, being aggrieved, has preferred this writ appeal on 13.08.2026 with an application to condone the delay of 538 days.

4. The respondents were put to notice for condoning the delay application and he has engaged a counsel, who represented him today and stated that there is no bonafide reason in the intra-court appeal with the delay of 538 days and the prototype reason given for the delay has to be condemned. Referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel submitted that the condone delay application was filed in a cavalier manner citing administrative reasons, which needs to be deprecated.

5. Our attention is drawn to paragraph No.9 of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application, wherein the Managing Director, who is the deponent of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, in which he has stated that the order was passed on 13.12.2024 and the web copy of the order was sent to his panel counsel for opinion and on getting the opinion from the counsel, it was placed

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:16 pm )

before the appeal committee to get approval. There was some delay in convening the appeal committee. After complying with all the formalities, the papers were forwarded to the officers concerned. The said explanation squarely falls within the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reprimanded Government organisations citing administrative delay as reason for condoning inordinate delay.

6. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that this appeal was filed only after the first respondent filed Contempt Petition No.617 of 2026, dated 16.02.2026 and the appeal filed with the delay is only to get rid of the contempt proceedings.

7. We find sufficient force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent regarding the condone delay application, that the reason stated in the condone delay application is not satisfactory. Hence, the condone delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, this Writ Appeal at the SR stage itself is rejected. No order as to costs. (Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) (E.MANOHARAN,J.) 10.09.2026 ari Index:yes/no Neutral citation:yes/no

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:16 pm )

To The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:16 pm )

Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND E.MANOHARAN,J. ari W.A.SR.No.110960 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.22134 of 2026 10.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:16 pm )