Madras High Court
Thamizhaka Arasu Pokkuvarathu ... vs The Management on 11 September, 2023
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.(MD)No.25346 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD)No.22947 of 2018
Thamizhaka Arasu Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam,
Through its General Secretary,
Sankaranarayana Pillai,
S/o.Thirumalaiyandi Pillai,
4, K.K.M – CITU, 23-B, Ranithottam,
Nagercoil – 1,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corportion (Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Represented by its Administrative Director,
Nagercoil Region, Ranithottam,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondent
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari call for the records,
pertaining to the impugned order, passed by the Labour Court,
Tirunelveli, in I.D.No.72 of 2016, dated 14.02.2017, and quash the same
as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kishore
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathya Singh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated
14.02.2017 in I.D.No.72 of 2016 passed by the Labour Court,
Tirunelveli.
2. Heard Mr.C.Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.K.Sathya Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent and perused the material available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
3. Brief facts of the case as per the averments made in the
affidavit of the petitioner are that :
The petitioner is the Trade Union representing the Workmen
one Mr.Hercules, who is the Driver in the respondent Management. On
31.01.2004, the said Hercules while driving the bus bearing Registration
No.TN 74 0779 on the Balamore -Nagercoil Road at about 18.50 hours,
the bus was stopped, for alighting the passengers and while the bus was
proceed just 60 meters, the deceased who ride a bicycle in the opposite
direction in a negligent manner and fall in a gutter and thereby, lost his
control and dashed into the right side of the bus. Though the said
Hercules was driving the bus slowly and steady manner, the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the bicycle rider. Due to the collusion,
the bicycle rider got injuries and hospitalized by the Driver in the same
bus. But in the hospital the injured person was succumbed to injuries.
To that effect, a case in Crime No.55 of 2004 was registered by
Boothapandi Police Station.
4. The petitioner was suspended by order, dated 03.02.2004
and a departmental proceedings were initiated against the Driver. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
main charge levelled against the Driver was that he drove the bus in a
rash and negligent manner and thereby, caused an accident which
resulted in a death of a person. After completion of the enquiry, the
General manager of the respondent Management by order, dated
14.04.2005, imposed a punishment of stoppage of three annual
increments without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was
treated as Earned Leave. Against the said order, it appears that the
petitioner filed appeal before the Competent Authority and by order
dated 06.01.2010 the punishment was modified to the extent of stoppage
of annual increment for two years without cumulative effect.
5. Meanwhile, a criminal case was registered against the
petitioner in C.C.No.33 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Boothapandi, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304
IPC, ended in acquittal by judgment, dated 17.12.2008. Against the
order of punishment, the petitioner Association raised Industrial Dispute
in I.D.No.72 of 2016 on the file of Labour Court, Tirunelveli. After
hearing both sides, the Labour Court, by award, dated 14.02.2017,
confirmed the punishment imposed for stoppage of annual increments for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
two years without cumulative effect. Against the order of the Labour
Court dated 14.02.2017, the present Writ Petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the
charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the
departmental proceedings are one and the same and at present Criminal
Court acquitted the petitioner. The learned counsel further contends that
the award of the Labour Court would not sustain and sought to set aside
the punishment imposed against the employee and to allow the Writ
Petition.
7. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondent submits that the orders passed by the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law and
the Labour Court also passed award considering the entire evidence
available on record and taking into the gravity of the charges levelled
against the Driver.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
8. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that there is
no infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court and as
such interference of this Court is not required and requested to dismiss
the Writ Petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.Paul Anthony Vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another reported in 1999 (3) Supreme
Court Cases - 679 and G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
reported in 2006 (5) Supreme Court Cases - 446.
10. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels
and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the
petitioner has raised Industrial Dispute against the punishment imposed
to its member, who is working as a Driver in the respondent
Management.
11. It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred on
31.01.2004 while Workmen was driving the respondent Corporation bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
and caused accident by leading to the death of the Cyclist.
12. Now the respondent Corporation after conducting
departmental enquiry imposed punishment of stoppage of three annual
increments without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was
treated as Earned Leave. In an appeal, the said punishment order was
modified by stoppage of annual increment for two years without
cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised dispute
under Industrial Dispute Act, before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli.
13. The Labour Court has framed three issues :
1) Whether the charges against the Driver
Thiru.Hercules have been proved in the internal
enquiry and in the Court ?
2) If yes, whether the punishment awarded to
him is justified ? and
3) Whether the Industrial Dispute is
qualified to be allowed ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
14. Before the Labour Court no witnesses are examined on
both sides. On behalf of the Workmen side Ex.W1 to Ex.W10 were
marked and on behalf of the Administration side Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were
marked.
15. In fact the Administration raised its primary objection
before the Labour Court that with regard to the person who had gone on
retirement cannot consider himself as the General Secretary of the
Petitioner's Association and as such the Industrial Dispute filed by the
retired employee in the capacity of the General Secretary is not
maintainable. Considering the fact that there is no restriction that a
retired person cannot be trade union representative and also its
administrator. The Labour Court gave finding that the Industrial Dispute
is sustainable.
16. Considering the material available on record, the Labour
Court gave finding that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly,
properly and following natural justice. As per Ex.W4 i.e., the drawing
related to the accident. On examination of the drawing, it is clear that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
bus had traversed on the centre line and had dashed against the Cyclist
who was coming on the west side of the road i.e., opposite direction and
as a result, he was thrown about 7 feet away and shown lying on the
ground and the drawing was prepared by the Inspector of Administration,
strangely, concerned Officer was not cross examined by the Workmen.
17. In the judgment in the Criminal case which was marked as
Ex.W10, the Criminal Court had pointed out that the Driver had driven
the bus speedily as per the evidence of the eye witness by name Rajan
and Sivarajan. They were not cross examined. As per the evidence of
the Doctor, who performed autopsy, also deposed that demised persons
liver and the spleen were found crumbled and also upper part of his lungs
were damaged and in the right shoulder four bones were found broken.
18. Considering the same, the Labour Court opined that there is
no chance for such damages happened unless the bus was travelling at a
high speed and such type of wounds could not have sustained by the
Cyclist on his free fall as contended by the Driver.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
19. Considering all these aspects, the Labour Court found that
the explanation of the Driver is not true and accordingly, decided not to
interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and
as modified by the Appellate Authority.
20. On careful perusal of the award of the Labour Court, it
appears that considering the entire evidence available on record, the
Labour Court passed a reasoned order dismissing the Industrial Dispute.
21. This Court has considered the reliances placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Though this Court is not having any
different opinion with regard to the proposition of law declared in those
reliances, in our considered view, those judgments are not applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. In our considered opinion, there is no illegality or
irregularity in the order passed by the Labour Court and as such
interference of this Court is not warranted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
24. No costs.
25. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.09.2023
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.25346 of 2018
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
RM
W.P.(MD)No.25346 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD)No.22947 of 2018
11.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
