Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. The second respondent workman was working as a Junior Tradesman in the petitioner Transport Corporation. He was issued with a charge memo dated 03.01.2002 making certain allegations. An enquiry was conducted. 3. On 30.05.2002, the petitioner examined one witness by name Mr.Thirunavukkarasu and certain documents were marked through him. Thereafter, it was adjourned to 12.06.2002 for cross examination of the said witness by the second respondent workman. 4. On 12.06.2002, the second respondent workman sought adjournment and his request was accepted and subsequently, the enquiry was adjourned to 19.07.2002. 5. In the meantime, the enquiry was preponed and conducted on 26.06.2002 in the absence of the second respondent workman and the enquiry was closed without cross examination of the witness of the petitioner Management by the second respondent workman. 6. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer gave a report holding that the charges were proved and the second respondent workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 19.03.2003. 7. Since an industrial dispute was pending, the writ petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval for dismissal of the second respondent workman from service before the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour. 8. The first respondent took up the application on file in Approval Petition No.329/2003. Both the parties were heard in the approval petition. Thereafter, the first respondent rejected the approval petition on 10.12.2004 holding that while the enquiry was posted to 19.07.2002, the same was preponed to 26.06.2002 and concluded on the same day viz. 26.06.2002, without giving any opportunity to the second respondent workman. Further, in the enquiry report, though the Enquiry Officer stated that the preponement notice was served on the second respondent workman and the same was marked as exhibit in the enquiry, the same was not produced before the first respondent. Hence, the first respondent held that since the workman was set ex-parte on 26.06.2002 and the enquiry was concluded on the same day, setting the workman ex-parte in the enquiry on 26.06.2002 is not fair and proper and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. In this regard, the relevant passage in the order dated 10.12.2004 of the first respondent in Approval Petition No.329/2003 is extracted hereunder: “In Exhibit A 5 the Enquiry Officer had recorded that the Opposite party / Delinquent employee is absent on 26.6.2002. 9. In this regard, the relevant passage in the order dated 10.12.2004 of the first respondent in Approval Petition No.329/2003 is extracted hereunder: “In Exhibit A 5 the Enquiry Officer had recorded that the Opposite party / Delinquent employee is absent on 26.6.2002. He had set him exparte and had closed the enquiry. The point to be noted is that the Applicant / Management had not produced before me any proof that the Opposite party had notice of the preponement of the enquiry from 19.7.2002 to 26.6.2002. In the absence of any document to confirm that the Opposite party had notice of the preponement of the enquiry from 19.7.2002 to 26.6.2002 I hold that the setting him exparte on 26.6.2002 and the closing of the enquiry on that day by the Enquiry Officer would amount to conducting the enquiry without notice to the Opposite party and thus violates the principles of natural justice. On this ground I refuse to accord approval for the dismissal of the Opposite party.” 10. Pursuant to the rule nisi issued by this Court, the original records are produced before this Court and I have perused the same. 11. As held by the first respondent, the alleged acknowledgment produced before the Enquiry Officer for preponement of enquiry was not produced before the first respondent. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the first respondent in this regard. Further, the writ petitioner did not file any application before the first respondent seeking an opportunity to adduce evidence, if the first respondent comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fairly conducted. Therefore, the first respondent had no other option, except to reject the approval petition. 12. Ít is relevant to note that the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment in SHAMBHU NATH GOYAL VS. BANK OF BARODA [ 1983 (4) SCC 491 ] has categorically held that when the workman filed a counter statement in the approval petition that he was not given reasonable opportunity in the enquiry and thereafter, if the Management fails to seek an opportunity to lead evidence by way of filing an application in the event of the authority coming to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fairly conducted, the authority would straight away reject the approval petition on coming to the conclusion that the enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. 13. The aforesaid view was confirmed by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. LAKSHMI DEVAMMA [ 2001 (5) SCC 433 ]. 14. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.