W.P.No.25411 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.No.25411 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.24392 of 2022 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Government Metropolitan Transport Corporation Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002. ... Petitioner vs. The State President Nethaji Transport Workers Union Regn.No.3553/CNI No.478, Mint Street, Siva Complex Chennai-600 001. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in O.P.No.123 of 2020 dated 08.07.2022 on the file of the III Page Nos.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaji for Mr.M.Chidambaram For Respondent : Mr.C.D.Sugumar ***** O R D E R The captioned Writ Petition (hereinafter referred to as “WP” for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) has been filed challenging the award dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in O.P. No. 123 of 2020. By the said award, the Labour Court set aside the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the petitioner / Corporation, whereby punishment was imposed on one Mr. E. Rajkumar, a member of the respondent / Union, postponing his annual increment for two years with cumulative effect. 2. The case of the petitioner / Corporation is that a domestic enquiry was initiated against the said employee, Mr. E. Rajkumar, while he was Page Nos.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 working as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. The allegation was that, during a surprise inspection, the employee was found in possession of three free senior citizen bus tokens. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted a report holding that the charge against the employee stood proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of postponement of annual increment for two years with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the said punishment, the respondent / Union raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act” for brevity, convenience and clarity). 3. The Labour Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Corporation was wholly unjustified. It was held that mere possession of three free senior citizen tokens, without proof of any misuse, fraud, or re- issuance, does not amount to misconduct under the relevant Standing Page Nos.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 Orders. Consequently, the Labour Court set aside the order of punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Corporation has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Mr. R. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / Corporation, submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on cogent materials. He further contended that the employee was admittedly in possession of three free senior citizen bus tokens, for which he had no plausible explanation, and therefore, the Labour Court erred in interfering with the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was further argued that the Corporation’s Regulations treat possession of such unauthorized tickets as misconduct, warranting disciplinary action, and hence, the award of the Labour Court is perverse and liable to be set aside. Page Nos.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 5. In response, Mr. C. D. Sugumar, learned counsel for the respondent / Union, submitted that the charge framed against the employee was under Standing Order 25(XLI)(C), which specifically deals with misconduct relating to the re-issue of old tickets. However, in the present case, the allegation pertains only to possession of three free senior citizen tokens, and not to re-issue or misuse of old tickets. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the charge was misconceived, and that the alleged act does not constitute misconduct as defined under the Standing Orders. He further submitted that the Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly held that the charge was not proved and the punishment was disproportionate and unwarranted. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials placed on record, Page Nos.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 7. The records reveal that on 11.03.2017, while the employee E. Rajkumar was performing his duties as a Conductor in one of the buses of the petitioner / Corporation, he was allegedly found in possession of three free senior citizen bus tokens during a routine inspection. However, to substantiate this allegation, the Corporation failed to produce any independent witness who allegedly witnessed the said tokens in the possession of the employee. Furthermore, no documentary evidence was produced to establish that the tokens in question were misused, reissued, or obtained with any malafide intent or was in possession of the delinquent at the time of inspection. 8. The charge was framed under Standing Order 25(XLI)(C), which relates specifically to re-issue of old tickets. It is evident that the alleged act of possession of senior citizen tokens does not fall within the purview of the said provision. Thus, in the absence of a specific clause in the Standing Orders treating such possession as misconduct, and in the absence of Page Nos.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 evidence proving wrongful intent or misuse, the finding of guilt cannot be sustained. 9. The Labour Court, upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence, rightly observed that the Corporation failed to prove the charge either through direct or circumstantial evidence. The finding of the Labour Court that possession of three free senior citizen tokens per se does not amount to misconduct is legally sound and supported by reasoned analysis. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the conclusions reached by the Labour Court. 10. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned award dated 08.07.2022 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference 10. In the result, the captioned Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. There shall be no order Page Nos.7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 as to costs. 09.10.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk To The Presiding Officer, The III Additional Labour Court Chennai. HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk Page Nos.8/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25411 of 2022 W.P.No.25411 of 2022 09.10.2025 Page Nos.9/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis