Madras High Court
The Secretary vs The Management on 11 March, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.2144 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.2144 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.15151 of 2024
The Secretary,
TNSTC Employees Union,
No.39, E-1, Cenema Nagar,
C.I.T.U Office,
Salem - 636 009. ... Appellant
versus
1.The Management,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem - 636 007.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem - 636 007.
3.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour and Employment Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
W.A.No.2144 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside
the order passed in W.P.No.14965 of 2017 dated 02.08.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ayyathurai
For Respondents : Mr.M.Aswin
Standing Counsel - R-1
Labour Court - R2
Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh
Additional Government Pleader - R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court made in
W.P.No.14965 of 2017 dated 02.08.2023, in and by which the writ court,
while setting aside the award of the Labour Court, upheld the punishment of
stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed on the
employee.
The brief facts that led to the litigation are as follows:-
2. The appellant who was working as a driver in the respondent
Corporation, was driving the bus from Chidambaram to Salem on
04.03.2009, at around 7.45p.m., the conductor of the bus, who was
admittedly travelling on the foot-board fell down and lost his life.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
3. The appellant was charged with rash and negligent driving
resulting in the death of the conductor. After the departmental enquiry, the
appellant was visited with the punishment of stoppage of increment with
cumulative effect for two years. In the departmental appeal, the punishment
of stoppage of increment for a period of two years was modified and the
punishment imposed was reduced to stoppage of increment for a period of
one year with cumulative effect.
4. Aggrieved, an Industrial Dispute was raised by the Union in
I.D.No.69 of 2013. The Labour Court, on examination of the evidence on
record, found that there is no evidence to prove rash and negligent driving
on the part of the driver of the bus. The Labour Court also faulted the
conductor for having travelled on the foot-board. Hence, the Labour Court
set aside the punishment.
5. An issue regarding the pay anomaly was raised and the
Management was directed to rectify the pay anomaly also. Aggrieved by the
award, the Corporation filed the above writ petition and the writ court had
interfered with the award of the Labour Court and restored the punishment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect while
sustaining the direction regarding rectification of pay anomaly. Aggrieved,
the workman is before us.
6. We have heard Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr.M.Aswin, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent,
and Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
third respondent.
7. Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the writ court was not justified in interfering
with the award, which is based on the evidence on record. He would also
drew our attention to the settled position of law that the writ court will not
interfere with the award of the Labour Court unless they are perverse or
against law.
8. Learned counsel would drew our attention to the award of the
Labour Court, which examines the evidence on record in detail and reaches
the conclusion that there is no evidence to establish the negligence on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
part of the driver and it was the conductor who was at fault, as he was not
expected to travel on the foot-board of the bus.
9. Contending contra, Mr.M.Aswin, learned Standing Counsel for
the first respondent would submit that this is because of the negligent and
rash driving, the conductor fell down from the bus, resulting in his death.
Therefore, the punishment is justified.
10. We have considered the rival submissions.
11. The charge against the appellant would be that he is guilty of
rash and negligent driving. The accident had occurred at about 7.45 p.m.
Even according to the Management, the conductor was travelling on the rear
foot-board of the bus. No person is expected to travel on the foot-board of
the bus be it a conductor or an ordinary passenger. If a conductor chooses to
travel on the foot-board of the bus and invites an accident, the driver cannot
be blamed or faulted for rash and negligent driving.
12. The Tribunal has pointed out that non of the witnesses
examined either during the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
have seen the accident. From the very charges the Labour Court has come to
the conclusion that it is the conductor who should be blamed for negligence
than the driver. The writ court has not held that the findings of the Labour
Court are perverse or that there is any procedural lacuna in the award of the
Labour Court.
13. Having not reached a conclusion that the findings are perverse,
the writ court ought not to have interfered with the findings of the Labour
Court. If the writ court is to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court,
it must record a finding that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse.
Such an exercise has not been carried out.
14. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order of the writ court.
The order of the writ court, is therefore set aside and the award of the
Labour Court will stand restored. It is stated that the employee has now
reached the age of superannuation and retired, the Corporation will
calculate the benefits that were denied by virtue of the punishment and pay
the same within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
15. This Writ Appeal is allowed with the above observation. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
11.03.2025
Speaking order
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
sri
To
1.The Management,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem - 636 007.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem - 636 007.
3.The Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
and
11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:03:33 pm )
