The Management vs General Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 11659 Mad

                                                                          W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 15.06.2021
                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                              W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021
                                                       and
                                             W.M.P(MD)No.6641 of 2021

                     The Management,
                     Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                           (Tirunelveli) Limited,
                     19,Thiruvananthapuram Road,
                     Vannarpettai,
                     Tirunelveli District.                  ... Petitioner

                                                       Vs.

                     General Secretary,
                     Nellai District Transport Employees Union (CITU),
                     In front of the head-office of the Tamil Nadu State
                     Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
                     Vannarpettai,
                     Tirunelveli-627 003.                       ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
                     of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records
                     relating to the impugned order passed by the Labour Court,
                     Tirunelveli, dated 31.10.2019, passed in I.D.No.56 of 2017.


                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.R.Rajamohan




                     1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021



                                                           ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the award of the

Labour Court, Tirunelveli, dated 31.10.2019, made in I.D.No.56 of

2017. One K.L.Kennedy is working as a driver in the petitioner's

Transport Corporation. On 12.08.2012, at 19.30 hours, at

Sankarankovil - Tenkasi Road, near Muthusamypuram, due to rash

and negligent driving by the said driver of the bus, bearing

Registration No.TN-58-N-1039, the accident had occurred and one

Chinnathai sustained injuries and died on the spot. The petitioner

initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said driver after the

domestic enquiry, after issuing second show cause notice to the

said driver and considering the explanation given by him, imposed

a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with

cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the same, the driver filed an

appeal to the Managing Director of the petitioner's Corporation.

Before the appeal could be considered and decided, the

respondent's Union raised an Industrial Dispute on behalf of the

driver. The petitioner filed counter and contested the same. The

Labour Court, Tirunelveli, by the award dated 31.10.2019, set aside

the punishment imposed by the petitioner's Corporation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021

Challenging the said award, the petitioner has come out with the

present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted

by the petitioner was not fair and just, but did not give an

opportunity to the petitioner to let in evidence before the Labour

Court afresh to prove the case against the driver. The accident had

occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the

bus. The Labour Court erroneously set aside the punishment

imposed by the petitioner. The reason given by the Labour Court is

invalid and illegal, when the driver has caused the accident due to

his rash and negligent driving. It affects the reputation of

petitioner's Corporation. In the Domestic Enquiry strict rule of

evidence is not applicable and guilt need not be established beyond

reasonable doubt. The proof of misconduct is sufficient. The Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving by the driver of the petitioner's

Corporation and that finding has become final and prayed for

setting aside the award of the Tribunal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

perused the materials available on record.

4. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner

has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for three years

with cumulative effect for misconduct of the driver for causing

accident due to rash and negligent driving. In the domestic

enquiry, the driver participated. From the award of the Tribunal, it

is seen that the petitioner has conducted domestic enquiry in a fair,

proper and transparent manner. The contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has held that the

domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, is

contrary to the impugned award. In the report of the domestic

enquiry itself, it is stated that deceased also contributed to the

accident. Further, in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of

the deceased person, claiming compensation before the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased, the

petitioner filed counter statement and contended that the accident

did not occur due to negligence of the driver and he was driving

the bus carefully and only due to the negligence on the part of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021

deceased, the accident had occurred. The Labour Court has

considered the stand taken by the petitioner before the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal carefully and relying on the two

judgments of this Court, in Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-II) Ltd.,

Periyamilaguparai, Tiruchirappalli and another vs.

P.Karuppusamy reported in 2008(1) MLJ 694 and the Apex

Court Judgment in Venkatappa alias Moode v. Abdul Jabbar

reported in (2006) 9 SCC 235, held that the petitioner has

imposed punishment without appreciating the facts properly and

set aside the order passed by the petitioner. In the judgment relied

on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents the

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have categorically held that the

party is bound by the pleadings and cannot be permitted to put

forth a new case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner took a

stand before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the accident

had not occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of

the driver. Having taken such a stand, it is not open to the

petitioner to take directly contradictory stand that only due to the

rash and negligent driving by the driver, the accident occurred.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021

The Labour Court has considered all materials placed before it in

proper perspective and set aside the order passed by the petitioner.

There is no error in the award of the Labour Court, setting aside

the punishment imposed by the petitioner.

5. For the above reason, the writ petition stands dismissed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.06.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No am

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI,J., am

W.P.(MD)No.8827 of 2021

15.06.2021

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