Madras High Court
The Managemnet vs The Presiding Officer on 4 January, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012
The Managemnet,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
(Madurai) Limited,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli. ... Petitioner
vs
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
2. A.Simon Rethina Samy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the first
respondent pertaining to its proceedings in I.D.No.22 of 2009, dated 08.04.2011
and quash the same.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Labour Court for R1
Mr.K.R.Laxman for R2
ORDER
The Management has filed this writ petition against the award passed in
I.D.No.22 of 2009, dated 08.04.2011.
2. The breif facts of the case are that the second respondent was appointed
as Driver on 18.08.1988. On 12.01.1996, while he was proceeding from
Palayamkottai to Seranmahadevi near Muneerpallam railway gate, the bus met
with an accident by hitting a lorry which was going in front of the bus. An
enquiry was conducted by the senior driver and it was revealed that the accident
was occurred due to the drunken driving of the second respondent. On the basis
of the report, the second respondent was placed under suspension on 12.01.1996
and an enquiry was ordered, vide order, dated 12.01.1996. On 19.01.1996 a show
cause notice was issued with Charge Memo and the second respondent submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
an explanation on 27.01.1996. Since, the same was not satisfactory, a full-fledged
enquiry was conducted on 09.02.1996. In the enquiry report, dated 15.02.1996,
the charges were held proved. The second show cause notice, dated 06.03.1996
was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The delinquent
did not submit any explanation and the enquiry report was accepted considering
the previous records and the Management has passed an order to stop the
increment for six years with cumulative effect. The delinquent did not prefer any
appeal before the Managing Director within a period of 60 days. After the lapse
of seven years, the delinquent has preferred an Industrial dispute in I.D.No.22 of
2009 and the Labour Court has set aside the punishment order. Aggrieved over
the same the Management has preferred this writ petition.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit substantiating the
order passed by the Labour Court. Since the second respondent was imposed the
punishment without taking the medical evidence, the same is not sustainable.
4. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
5. The respondent relied on Divisional Bench judgment rendered in C.M.A.
(MD)No.614 of 2020, dated 31.03.2021, wherein, it is stated that in the Post-
mortem/Autopsy report no mention about presence of alcohol. When the
Accident Register had mentioned about drunken driving, a chemical analysis for
the content of alcohol should have been done. Having failed to prove that the
accident occurred due to the drunken driving of the deceased, contributory
negligence cannot be attributed to the deceased. In the present case admittedly
the second respondent has committed an accident and when the Enquiry Officer
visited the spot, the petitioner could not wake up and was sleeping. The
Inspecting Officer has come to the conclusion that the second respondent was
drunk. This may be a prima facie evidence, but it has to be substantiated by
taking him to some hospital and ought to have analyzed whether he was drunken.
The petitioner Management has not done the same.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court
is right in stating that the Management has not substantiated the allegation
because of the drunken driving, the second respondent has committed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
accident. However, the facts remains that there was an accident and the second
respondent could not wake up when the spot inspection was carried out. Either it
may be due to accident or it may be due to drunken driving of the second
respondent. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the punishment of six years of stoppage of increment with
cumulative effect may be too harsh and the same ought to be reduced to one year.
Therefore this Court is modifying the punishment from stoppage of increment for
six years with cumulative effect as punishment of stoppage of increment for one
year without cumulative effect.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
jbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
S.SRIMATHY, J
jbr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.186 of 2012
04.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
