The Management vs R.Pappaiyan (Deceased)
2021 Latest Caselaw 15399 Mad

                                                                          W.P. No. 31419 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 01.08.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

                                              W.P. No. 31419 of 2018
                                                       and
                                              W.M.P. No.36616 of 2018


                The Management,
                Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                (Kumbakonam) Limited,
                No.27, Railway Station New Road,
                Kumbakonam – 612 001.                                   ... Petitioner

                                                        -vs-

                1. R.Pappaiyan (deceased)

                2. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
                   Chennai – 6.

                3. Anbarasi

                4. Ramsundar

                5. Devadharshini                                        ... Respondents

                (R3 to R5 substituted as LRs of deceased R1
                vide order dated 08.07.2021 made in W.M.P.
                No. 22965 of 2020 in W.P. No. 31419 of 2018
                by SVNJ)




                1/6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   W.P. No. 31419 of 2018

                Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
                to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to
                the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the second respondent in Approval Petition
                No. 299 of 2011 and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to
                approve the order of the petitioner dated 19.08.2011 dismissing the first
                respondent from service.
                                      For Petitioner  :       Mr.D.Venkatachalam
                                      For Respondents :       R1 died
                                                              Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
                                                              Government Advocate for R2
                                                              Mr.T.Ananthasekar for R3 to R5


                                                      ORDER

Petitioner / Transport Corporation has come up with this Writ Petition

challenging the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the second respondent /

Authority in Approval Petition No. 299 of 2011.

2. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner / Transport

Corporation that, the deceased employee joined the services of the petitioner /

Transport Corporation as a Driver. While the deceased employee was on duty on

07.01.2010, he was responsible for a fatal accident and after conducting due

enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 19.08.2011.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 31419 of 2018

3. It is seen that, the second respondent / Authority has rejected the

Approval Petition filed by the Petitioner / Transport Corporation on the ground

that, the domestic enquiry has not been fairly conducted and that, the punishment

imposed on the employee is disproportionate to the charges framed against him.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material

documents available on record.

5. When this Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the appellant

as to what stand has been taken before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he

produced a copy of the counter filed in M.C.O.P. No. 166 of 2010 before the

Tribunal, from which, it is seen that a different stand has been taken before the

Tribunal to the extent that the Driver is not responsible for the accident. In view of

the contradictory stand taken by the Management before the Tribunal and the

departmental proceedings, in my view, the rejection order passed by the authority

is perfectly valid and is in consonance with the proposition laid down by the Apex

Court in Lalla Ram vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., and

others reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 31419 of 2018

6. It is seen that the employee died in the interregnum period and the legal

heirs were already brought on record. In normal circumstances, if the domestic

enquiry is held to be improper, the matter would have been remanded back to the

Authorities concerned to conduct an enquiry after affording an opportunity to the

employer, as there is a plea made by the employer to let in evidence to prove the

charges in the light of the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of John D' Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported

in (2019) 18 SCC 47 and in the case of Management, Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Kancheepuram Region,

Kancheepuram v. M.Chitti Babu (deceased) and others reported in 2021-I-LLJ-

17 (Mad).

7. Though such a plea is present even at the initial stage, a fresh enquiry

cannot be directed to be conducted on account of the fact that the employee is no

more. Hence, the legal heirs are entitled to get the monitory benefits up to the date

of the death of the employee.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 31419 of 2018

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be

no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

01.08.2021

Index: Yes / No Speaking Order: Yes / No

vji

To

The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai – 6.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No. 31419 of 2018

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

vji

W.P. No. 31419 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.36616 of 2018

01.08.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/