Madras High Court
The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 28 June, 2022
W.A.(MD).No.606 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A.(MD).No.606 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5122 of 2022
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Nagercoil Division,
Ranithottam,
Nagercoil. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.S.Ramesh (Driver),
represented by his General Secretary,
Kamaraj Nadar Employees Union,
Registration No.537/KKM,
Nagercoil Region,
Nagercoil.
... Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against
the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.19339 of 2017, dated 12.03.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.A.(MD).No.606 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajamohan
For R2 : Mr.M.Dennis Joe
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR.J.,)
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.(MD).No.19339 of
2017, dated 12.03.2019.
2. Heard Mr.R.Rajamohan, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.M.Dennis Joe, learned counsel for the second respondent.
3. The second respondent is working as a Driver under the appellant
Transport Corporation. As against the order of punishment of three years
increment cut with cumulative effect, by order dated 26.05.2011, the second
respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour
Court, Tirunelveli by order dated 27.02.2017 in I.D.No.31 of 2016, set aside the
order of punishment. As against the award of Labour Court, the appellant
Transport Corporation has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.19339 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.606 of 2022
2017. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition mainly
on the ground that the second respondent was acquitted in the criminal case and
there is no evidence let in before the Labour Court to prove the charge. It is also
noticed by the learned single Judge that the appellant Transport Corporation has
filed a counter statement before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2012 and taken a specific stand that the second respondent
was not responsible for the accident.
4. Before this Court also there is no evidence indicating that the
Management had examined anyone independently to prove the misconduct of
the second respondent. It is admitted that the charges were framed against the
second respondent only on account of the accident caused by the second
respondent. In such circumstances, after the second respondent was acquitted
by the criminal Court, unless the Department had examined or filed any
independent evidence to prove the misconduct, it is not possible for imposing
punishment by alleging that the second respondent had driven the bus in a rash
and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is also admitted before this
Court that the appellant Transport Corporation has not even produced before
the Labour Court the enquiry report to show that the Management had reasons
to held the charges as proved against the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.606 of 2022
5. For the reasons stated by the learned single Judge and the
discussion above, this Court is unable to find any irregularity or illegality in the
order of the learned single Judge. Hence, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R.J.,] [S.S.Y.J.,]
28.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
akv
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.606 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR,J.,
and
S.SRIMATHY,J.,
akv
W.A.(MD).No.606 of 2022
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
