JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, direction to call for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Approval AP.No.235 of 2010 dated 27.12.2012, and to quash the same an illegal and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.12.2012, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, made in Approval Petition No.235 of 2010. 2. The respondent No.1 was appointed as a Driver in the writ petitioner Corporation. On 06.05.2008, while driving a bus on the Trichy - Velankanni route, at about 1800 hrs in the evening, there was an accident resulting in the death of a cyclist. A charge memo was issued to the respondent for misconduct under Clause 24(28)(g), 24(27)(h) and 24(40) of the certified standing orders of the writ petitioner. The respondent received the charge memo and submitted his explanation on 09.06.2008. The explanation was not accepted resulting in initiation of the domestic enquiry. 3. An enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted. The respondent participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer by his report dated 10.04.2009, held that the charges against the first respondent were proved and a copy of the findings of the enquiry report was given to the respondent, who gave his explanation. Explanations given by the respondent were not accepted. The management issued a show-cause notice dated 27.03.2010, proposing the punishment of dismissal. The show -cause notice containing the proposal of dismissal of the services of the respondent, was received by the respondent, who gave his reply. The order dated 13.12.2010, was passed by the writ petitioner dismissing the respondent from service. Since the labour dispute has already pending, the petitioner filed an Approval Petition AP.No.235 of 2010, before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Approval Petition came for consideration before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. 4. Before the Authority it was contended by the respondent that the findings of the enquiry were not proper. The respondent supported the findings of the enquiry report. It was also contended that the requirement of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, had not been complied with. 4. Before the Authority it was contended by the respondent that the findings of the enquiry were not proper. The respondent supported the findings of the enquiry report. It was also contended that the requirement of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, had not been complied with. The Labour Court framed the following issues: - “(1) Whether one month salary has been paid to the Worker? (2) Whether this application has been filed within time or in the part of action taken against the Respondent worker? (3) Whether the domestic enquiry was conducted by following the acts and the principle of natural justice? (4) Whether the case had been proved by the prima facie evidence and witnesses? (5) Whether the action taken by the management against the respondent is not a vindictive action otherwise came to the conclusion that the Respondent is guilty?” 5. The Labour Court after considering all the aspects of the case came to the conclusion that, though the principles of natural justice had been followed in the enquiry proceedings, but the respondent had not been paid one month salary before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. It was found by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, the petitioner herein had not informed to the Authority for approving of the action taken by them. The order of termination has been set aside by the Competent Authority. It is this order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, in the Approval Petition which is under in the instant writ petition. 6. Heard the counsel for the parties. 7. The counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently submitted that they had issued a cheque bearing No.957713 dated 13.12.2010, of Indian Overseas Bank, for a sum of Rs.16,242/ - which is the one month salary. The writ petitioner would submit that, the cheque was returned and the petitioner further submitted that the same was placed on the notice board from 21.12.2010 to 23.12.2013, and signed by three employees. The petitioner has also furnished a photocopy of the cheque bearing No.957713 dated 13.12.2010 as Exhibit -P1. 8. As rightly observed by the Labour Court, other than producing the cheque, nothing has been shown by the petitioner, to substantiate its contention that the chance had been given to the respondent and the respondent had refused to accept the cheque. The petitioner has also furnished a photocopy of the cheque bearing No.957713 dated 13.12.2010 as Exhibit -P1. 8. As rightly observed by the Labour Court, other than producing the cheque, nothing has been shown by the petitioner, to substantiate its contention that the chance had been given to the respondent and the respondent had refused to accept the cheque. The Management had to substantiate its assertion that by giving evidence that, the cheque had indeed been given to the respondent and the respondent had refused to accept the same. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Competent Authority came to conclusion that the provisions under Section 33(ii) of the Industrial Dispute Act has not been complied with. 9. This Court does not find any infirmity with the findings of the Competent Authority. Merely filing a photocopy of the cheque does not substantiate the assertion that such an amount was tendered to the employee in compliance with the statutory provisions. The findings of the Labour Court that the application for approval also has not been filed within a reasonable time, also does not require any interference. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, has found that no document has been filed to prove that the Form -D was received in the office on 16.12.2010. No acknowledgment has been filed in this Court to substantiate that the Form -D had been filed on 16.12.2010. 10. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works Ltd & Another, reported in 1978 (3) SCC 1 , paragraph No.12 of the said judgment reads as under: - “12. 10. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. DCM Chemical Works Ltd & Another, reported in 1978 (3) SCC 1 , paragraph No.12 of the said judgment reads as under: - “12. The position that emerges from the abovequoted decisions of this Court may be stated thus: In proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is confined to the enquiry as to (i) whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/Standing Orders and principles of natural justice has been held; (ii) whether a prima facie case for dismissal based on legal evidence adduced before the domestic tribunal is made out; (iii) whether the employer had come to a bona fide conclusion that the employee was guilty and the dismissal did not amount to unfair labour practice and was not intended to victimise the employee regard being had to the position settled by the decisions of this Court in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. v. Ram Prabesh Singh [ AIR 1964 SC 486 : (1964) 1 SCR 709 : (1963) 1 LLJ 291 : 24 FJR 406] , Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Kumar [(1961) 1 LLJ 511 : (1960 -61) 19 FJR 15] , Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen [ AIR 1965 SC 917 : (1965) 2 SCR 85 : (1965) 1 LLJ 462 : 27 FJR 232] , Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Management [ (1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 341 : AIR 1973 SC 1227 : (1973) 3 SCR 587 ] and Eastern Electric & Trading Co. v. Baldev Lal [ (1975) 4 SCC 684 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 382 : 1975 Lab IC 1435] that though generally speaking the award of punishment for misconduct under the Standing Orders is a matter for the management to decide and the Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or too severe yet an inference of mala fides may in certain cases be drawn from the imposition of unduly harsh, severe, unconscionable or shockingly disproportionate punishment; (iv) whether the employer has paid or offered to pay wages for one month to the employee and (v) whether the employer has simultaneously or within such reasonably short time as to form part of the same transaction applied to the authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken by him. If these conditions are satisfied, the Industrial Tribunal would grant the approval which would relate back to the date from which the employer had ordered the dismissal. If however, the domestic enquiry suffers from any defect or infirmity, the labour authority will have to find out on its own assessment of the evidence adduced before it whether there was justification for dismissal and if it so finds it will grant approval of the order of dismissal which would also relate back to the date when the order was passed provided the employer had paid or offered to pay wages for one month to the employee and the employer had within the time indicated above applied to the authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken by him.” 11. In the facts of this case, it is clear that there was nothing to show that the employer has paid or offered to pay wages for one month to the employee and further that the approval has been sought for within the shortest possible time. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the findings given by the Labour Court, Chennai, which has not shown to be perverse by the petitioner, no further interference is called for. 12. The writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.