Madras High Court
R.Rajan vs The Presiding Officer on 27 October, 2021
W.A.No.2810/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2810 of 2019
R.Rajan ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem.
2. The Management of Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem-636 007. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the Order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.10414
of 2012 dated 18.04.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Mohamed Nazarullah
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.D.Raghu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.A.No.2810/2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the impugned order
passed in W.P.No.10414 of 2012 dated 18.04.2012 in and by which
the learned Single Judge while confirming the findings and
conclusions reached by the learned Labour Court, Salem, the 1 st
respondent herein, finding no merits whatsoever in the Writ Petition,
dismissed the same.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant finding fault
with the approach adopted by both the learned Labour Court as well
as the learned Single Judge argued that when the writ
petitioner/appellant herein joined the services of the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, Salem, the 2nd respondent herein on
04.05.1993, he was regularly working with devotion to duty without
giving any room for any complaint. However, on 28.06.2002, while
he was driving a bus bearing Registration No.TN 27 N 1060 from
Rasipuram to Salem at 10.15 a.m., and when the bus was nearing
Poimaankaradu, at that time, in order to give way to the oncoming
lorry, the appellant turned the bus towards the left side. Since the
steering got locked, immediately he applied brake, resultantly, he lost
his control. Consequently, the bus dashed against the parapet wall of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2810/2019
a well situated near the road. Out of panic, the passengers in the bus
attempted to get down from the bus from all the possible exists, as a
result, the bus fell into the well. In the said accident, 8 passengers
died on the spot and about 20 passengers sustained injuries.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further
argued that since the accident occurred beyond the control of the
appellant, the appellant cannot be made responsible for the said
accident. But without considering the fact that the bus bearing
Registration No. TN 27 N 1060 was not properly maintained by the 2 nd
respondent Transport Corporation, a Charge Memo dated 04.07.2002
was issued, calling upon the appellant to submit his explanation.
However, on receipt of the said Charge Memo, the appellant has also
submitted a detailed explanation dated 31.07.2002 denying the
charges as untrue and not maintainable. But the Disciplinary
Authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the
appellant, ordered for an enquiry, thereby appointing an Enquiry
Officer to conduct a domestic enquiry to go into the nature of the
charges. But unfortunately, the appellant was not at all taken part in
the enquiry due to his ill-health and he has also sent a representation
to the 2nd respondent to postpone the enquiry on medical grounds.
But rejecting the bonafide request made by the appellant to postpone
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2810/2019
the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry, setting
the appellant ex-party and finally, he submitted his Enquiry Report
dated 14.08.2002 that was served on the appellant along with the 2 nd
Show Cause Notice dated 28.08.2002. On receipt of the same also,
the appellant submitted a detailed representation on 05.09.2002. But
without even going through the reasons and justifications given in the
representation dated 05.09.2002, the Disciplinary Authority agreeing
with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, passed an order of
dismissal from service vide order dated 06.09.2002.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that as the
appellant was not given reasonable opportunity to explain his case
before the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as he has sought for some time
to recover from his illness and then to take part in the enquiry, the
appellant raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.1/2003 under Section
2(a)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, approaching the Labour
Court, Salem. But the Labour Court also, after hearing the both sides,
wrongly proceeded with the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, erroneously dismissed his case by passing an impugned
award dated 12.04.2011 thereby confirming the punishment of
dismissal awarded by the 2nd respondent which is disproportionate to
the proved charges. Therefore, the appellant has approached this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2810/2019
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a Writ
Petition in W.P.No.10414 of 2012 seeking to interfere with the
findings and conclusions reached by the learned Labour Court. But
the learned Single Judge also taking into account the fact that the
appellant failed to take part in the enquiry and overlooking the fact
that he was unable to take part in the enquiry due to his illness,
dismissed the Writ Petition, thereby confirming the findings given by
the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has
been filed. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded
for allowing the present Writ Appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that
when the unfortunate accident took place on 28.02.2002, the vehicle
was not properly examined and there were serious mechanical
defects. In view thereof, when the appellant was taking the bus
bearing Registration No. TN 27 N 1060 from Rasipuram to Salem, at
10.15 a.m., and the bus was nearing Poimaankaradu, the appellant
lost the control of the vehicle due to the mechanical defects occurred
in the said bus. Therefore, the appellant is no way responsible for the
alleged accident which is beyond his control. Hence, the present Writ
Appeal may be allowed, he pleaded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2810/2019
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-
Management.
7. We are unable to accept the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the appellant. As a matter of fact, when a
strange contention has been made before us putting the entire blame
on the bus bearing Registration No. TN 27 N 1060, driven by the
appellant from Rasipuram to Salem at 10.15 a.m., in general, an ideal
driver before gets into his vehicle, he has to physically examine the
bus, namely, whether the brake system is in order, tires are road
worthy etc. But it is not his case that at the time of taking up the
bus, before boarding the same, he entertained any doubt either with
regard to the condition of the tires, brakes or machine. Moreover,
when an opportunity was given to take part in the enquiry, as a
matter of fact, the appellant, having suffered a serious allegation that
due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration
No. TN 27 N 1060 on the fateful day has committed serious charges,
ought to have utilized the opportunity taking part in the enquiry by
producing the oral and documentary evidences. But on the contrary,
for the reasons known to him, he willfully boycotted the enquiry.
Surprisingly, when the conductor of the same bus also took part and
explained that there was no such mechanical defect in the bus, in our
considered opinion, the Enquiry Officer has rightly proceeded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2810/2019
with the
enqury setting the appellant ex-parte and the findings and
conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer have not been properly
impeached by the appellant and the same was rightly confirmed by
the Labour Court, Salem, the 1st respondent herein in the Industrial
Dispute raised by the appellant in I.D.No.1/2003. The learned Single
Judge also, accepting the findings of the Labour Court, dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant herein. When the findings of fact
reached by the domestic Enquiry Officer has been rightly accepted by
the Labour Court, which is also on further challenge before this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single
Judge, finding no infirmity therein dismissed the Writ Petition and on
further appeal before us, finding no serious error either on the
findings reached by the Labour Court or in the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge, we have no hesitation to dismiss the
present Writ Appeal. Further, in our considered opinion, as the
appellant has taken away the lives of 8 innocent passengers by also
causing injuries to 20 other passengers, the punishment of dismissal
from service was rightly awarded. Therefore, when the dismissal of
the Industrial Dispute by the Labour Court having been rightly
confirmed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2810/2019
8. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(T.R.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
27.10.2021
tsi
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem.
2. The Management of Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem-636 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2810/2019
T.RAJA, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
tsi
W.A.No.2810/2019
27.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
