Madras High Court
The General Secretary vs The Management on 1 July, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD).No.27267 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.27267 of 2022
The General Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Muvendar Munnani Kazhaga
Thozhilalar Sangam,
Having Office at, Door No.106/7,
Gopal Nagar, Dindigul. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Madurai) Limited,
Byepass Road, Dindigul Region,
Dindigul. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Trichy
in ID.No.16/2016 dated 06.10.2021 in so far as it has denied and negatived
the claim of the petitioner to set aside the punishment of stoppage of his
annual increment for two years with cumulative effect besides treating the
period of suspension of 30 days from 26.11.2010 to 25.12.2010 as eligible
leave instead of treating the suspension period as duty in terms of the
Standing Orders of the respondent corporation and quash the same and
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.27267 of 2022
consequently direct the respondents to settle difference in wages to the
petitioner with arrears, periodical review benefits and all other attendant and
consequential benefits with suitable rate of interest.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Trade Union
challenging the award of the Labour Court, Trichy, in I.D.No.16 of 2016,
dated 06.10.2021, wherein, the punishment of postponement of increment for
a period of three years with cumulative effect imposed by the Management
was confirmed.
2. One Mr.S.Murugan, who was employed as a driver in the respondent
Transport Corporation was issued with a charge Memo dated 01.12.2012 on
the allegation that due to his negligence, he has caused a fatal accident on
24.11.2010. After enquiry, he was found guilty of the charges and he was
imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of
three years with cumulative effect. This order was put to challenge by the
Union under Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
3. The Labour Court, after considering the documents filed on the side
of the petitioner and the respondent and the submissions made on either side
has arrived at a finding that the driver was responsible for the accident and
has proceeded to confirm the order of punishment. Challenging the same, the
present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
when the workman was driving the vehicle at about 12.00 midnight, the
deceased lady, who was 75 years old had attempted to cross the road and she
got stumbled upon the median and fell on the back side of the bus. There was
no negligence on the part of the driver. He has further submitted that the
relatives of the deceased lady have given a letter to the respondent Transport
Corporation to the effect that the deceased lady was a mentally challenged
person and for answering the nature's call she had come out of the house at
around 12.00 midnight and therefore she alone was responsible for the
accident. He further pointed out that the Labour Court has erroneously fixed
the burden upon the workman to prove that he was not responsible for the
accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent/Transport Corporation submitted that the driver had initially given
statement that after seeing the old lady he had stopped the bus. But despite
the stoppage of the bus, the lady had fallen on the bus and passed away.
However, after getting letter from the relatives of the aged deceased lady, a
different stand was taken by the driver. Since contradictory stands were taken,
the Enquiry Officer has arrived at a finding that the accident has taken place
only due to the negligence on the part of the driver. Merely because the driver
was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, on the ground of benefit of doubt,
he cannot be exonerated from the domestic enquiry. Hence, he prayed for
sustaining the order passed by the labour Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
7. On 24.11.2010, when the driver was driving the bus from Salem to
Bodinayakkanur, at around 11.55 p.m., when the bus was crossing Theni-
Allinagaram, near Fatima Theatre, the old lady had attempted to cross the
road, she had stumbled upon the median and right rear side body of the bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
had dashed against the lady and she had fallen into the bus. She has sustained
grievous injuries and she later passed away.
8. A perusal of the basic report submitted by the authorities would also
supports the above said facts.
9. The grandson of the deceased lady has given a letter to the transport
Corporation to the effect that his grandmother is a mentally challenged person
aged about 75 years and she was responsible for the accident and the driver of
the transport Corporation was not negligent. This letter has been marked as
Ex.W.4.
10. A perusal of the judgment of the criminal Court reveals that the
relatives of the deceased lady who have been examined as P.W1 and P.W.2
had categorically deposed that their grandmother was a mentally challenged
person and she alone was responsible for the accident. Therefore, the
Criminal Court has proceeded to acquit the workman. Though the last line of
the criminal Court judgment reveals that the acquittal is based on the benefit
of doubt, in fact, the acquittal is a honourable acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
11. As per Clause 61 of the 12(3) settlement dated 30.09.1992, if the
driver is honourably acquitted in the criminal case, the decision in the
disciplinary action has to be revised based on the orders of the Court. In the
present case, the acquittal is honourable in nature. However, the authority has
not chosen to revise the orders of punishment imposed on the workman.
12. The labour Court has erroneously fixed the burden upon the
workman and has arrived at a finding that the accident has taken place due to
the negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation. Though
the close relatives of the deceased lady have categorically deposed before the
criminal Court that she is a mentally challenged person and the accident has
taken place due to her negligence, the Labour Court has not considered the
said portion in the order.
13. The Labour Court has also failed to consider the fact that the
relatives of the deceased lady have given a letter to the Branch Manager to
the effect that the deceased lady is a mentally challenged person. It is also
been noted that the relatives of the deceased lady have not filed any claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In such circumstances, it
is clear that there is no negligence on the part of the workman and the charges
as against the workman have not been proved. The Labour Court has
erroneously fixed the burden upon the workman and proceeded to confirm the
punishment imposed as against the workman.
14. In view of the above said deliberations, the order of the Labour
Court as well as the punishment imposed by the Management is hereby set
aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondent is directed to
regularize the suspension period of the workman as duty period and to release
all the consequential monetary benefits within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
01.07.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
To
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Madurai) Limited,
Byepass Road, Dindigul Region,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
01.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 06:21:18 pm )
