Madras High Court
The Management vs The General Secretary on 13 June, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD)No.3311 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.3311 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.2659 of 2021
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Limited,
Ranithottam,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The General Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees
Union 4KKM (CITU),
Ranithottam,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, dated
20.12.2019 passed in I.D.No.75 of 2017 and to pass such further or other orders
as this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
W.P(MD)No.3311 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Arunachalam
ORDER
The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Tirunelveli Division, Nagercoil Region has filed the present writ petition
challenging the award of the Labour Court, wherein, the Labour Court has set
aside the punishment imposed upon the driver.
2. One Mr.T.Kumaresan, who was working as a driver in the petitioner
Transport Corporation was issued with a charge memo on 23.05.2013 for being
involved in a fatal accident. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted
by him, a domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately was found that the
charges are against him stood proved. The Management has chosen to impose a
punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year with
cumulative effect.
3. This order was challenged by the Union under Section 2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after
considering the evidence on either side has arrived at a finding that the enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
report is perverse in nature and the accident has not taken place due to the
negligence on the part of the driver. The Labour Court has proceeded to set
aside the punishment imposed by the Management. Challenging the same, the
present writ petition has been filed by the Transport Corporation.
4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
accident has taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the driver. A
passenger, who was standing in the front door was thrown out of the bus and
she had sustained injuries. If the driver had been careful enough, such an
accident could have been avoided. He further submitted that the injured
passenger had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kuzhithurai and the Management had incurred huge financial loss
due to the negligence on the part of the driver.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the workman relying
upon Exhibit W.10 submitted that the Management has filed a counter in the
Motor Accident Claims Petition that the driver is not responsible for the
accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver. He further
pointed out that even in the domestic enquiry report, 50% of the negligence has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
been attributed to the passenger. In such circumstances, the enquiry officer
could not have arrived at a finding that the charges as against the petitioner are
proved. The Management ought not to have imposed a punishment of
postponement of increment.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 (4) SCC 321
[Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna
Naik] and contend that the Management cannot take contradictory stands.
7. Heard the learned Counsels on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
8. Exhibit W.10, is the counter filed by the Transport Corporation before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2014,
paragraph Nos.6 and 7 are extracted as follows:
"6. This respondent is not at all liable for the claim of the
petitioner. This respondent was driving the vehicle in a normal
speed after obeying all traffic rules. But the first petitioner was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
travelling in the bus by standing on the foot board and she
herself fell down from the bus due to her negligence. So the
question of rash and negligent driving of this respondent does
not arise for consideration.
7. As the accident was occurred due to the negligence of
the first petitioner herself the petitioners are not entitled to file
this O.P and claim compensation. So the respondents 1 and 2
are not at all jointly or severally liable for the claim of the
petitioners."
9. A perusal of this counter affidvait would clearly reveal that the
Management has taken a specific stand that there was no negligence on the part
of the driver and only the passenger was responsible for the accident.
10. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment
reported in 2025 (4) SCC 321 [Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik] has held that the Management
cannot take contradictory stands. Paragraph Nos.30 and 32 of the said judgment
are extracted as follows:
"30. The Corporation did not deliberately refer to the
award of MACT at two different tiers, and thereby actively
suppressed relevant material from a Court of law. We do not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
propose to enter the arena of controversy as to whether the
award of MACT is binding on the Labour Court. However, the
Corporation could not have at any rate resiled from what it
pleaded in its own written statement before MACT on a sworn
affidavit and deliberately withhold the same. This Court has
always taken a serious view against suppression of evidence in
a judicial proceeding.
32. Even if we keep the award of MACT aside, it is clear
from the pleadings of the Corporation before MACT and the
Labour Court that the Corporation has attempted to get the best
of both worlds. The contradictory nature of the stances taken by
the Corporation before the Labour Court and MACT reeks of
the Corporation trying to approbate and reprobate on the same
issue. It is bound to cause immense prejudice to Mahadeo if the
Corporation is allowed to reverse its stance to suit its own
interests."
11. The Labour Court has also arrived at a finding that the enquiry report
is perverse in nature. Considering the counter filed by the Management before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Labour Court
need not be interfered with. There are no merits in this writ petition. Hence, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
Writ Petition stands dismissed. The authorities are directed to release the
monetary benefits, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
13.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
To
The General Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees
Union 4KKM (CITU),
Ranithottam,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
BTR
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:40 pm )
