M.Krishnamuthy vs The Management
2023 Latest Caselaw 11297 Mad

                                                             1

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 27.08.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                    W.P.No.24384 of 2015


                     M.Krishnamuthy                                        ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     1.The Management,
                       Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                        (Villupuram) Ltd.,
                       Thiruvannamalai Region,
                       Vengikal, Thiruvannamalai District.

                     2. The Labour Court,
                        Vellore.                                           ... Respondents



                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call the records of the
                     2nd respondent dated 23.02.2015 and made in I.D.No.160 of 2014 and
                     quash the same and direct the first respondent to employ the petitioner.

                                   For Petitioner       : M/s.M.Selvam

                                   For Respondents      : Ms.S.Pavithra, Standing Counsel for R1


                                                         ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.160 of 2014 dated

23.02.2015 thereby dismissing the dispute raised by the petitioner

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by the first respondent

on 21.03.2008 as a reserve crew. However, he worked as a regular Driver

continuously for 240 days. While being so on 24.04.2012 when the

petitioner was driving a bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-2151 from

Tiruvannamalai to Thiruvadathanur on Vettalvalam Road, at that time, a

motor cyclist was hit by the petitioner, due to which, he lost his control,

fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death.

Consequently, the petitioner was terminated from service and he raised

dispute before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed by the

second respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service from

25.03.2008 to 25.04.2012. Without following the provision under

Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner was terminated

from service without conducting any enquiry. A Criminal case was also

initiated against the petitioner, which ended in acquittal by the judgment https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

dated 22.06.2020 in C.C.No.15 of 2000 on the file the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to raise

Industrial Dispute.

4. On a perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner was

appointed temporarily through Employment Exchange for the reserve

crew. In terms of the conditions of appointment, it has been clearly stated

that the service of the petitioner is not statutory, he was dismissed prior

to the notice. The negligent driving of the petitioner on 24.04.2012, was

the cause of the accident, due to which the deceased died on the spot. The

Criminal Court acquitted him. The said acquittal was based on the

strength that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any

reasonable doubt. Therefore, it does not mean that the petitioner did not

commit any accident. In fact, it is only due to the negligence of the

petitioner, the accident had taken place and one person died on the spot.

That apart, reserve crew drivers, drive the bus when the demand comes.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement. Further he also

found not fit for the service and his service were not satisfactory. On a

further perusal of the Exs.M1 to M5, the fact reveals that the petitioner

was frequently absent from his duty. The First respondent continuously https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

received reports against the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent

has rightly dismissed the Industrial Dispute No.160 of 2014 raised by the

petitioner and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed

by the second respondent.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as there is no

merits. No costs.

27.07.2023 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order jai

To

1.The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Region, Vengikal, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The Labour Court, Vellore.

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

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

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

jai

W.P.No.24384 of 2015

27.07.2023

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