Rani Mangammal Transport CorporationLimited, now known as Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation (Madurai v. The Presiding OfficerLabour CourtTiruchirappalli2.C.Muthukaruppan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:17.4.2008 CORAM;THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.6097 OF 1998Rani Mangammal Transport CorporationLimited, now known as Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation (Madurai Div.IV)Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Dindugalrep. by its Managing Director..Petitionervs1.The Presiding OfficerLabour CourtTiruchirappalli2.C.Muthukaruppan, Driver T.N.5051509C/o R.M.T.C. Workers Union (CITU)No.47, C.V.M.R. Patti, Dindigal ..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records fromthe file of the first respondent herein in I.D.No.379/95 dated 16.12.97and to quash the same.for petitioners : Mr.S.Jayaramanfor respondents : Mr.Ajay Ghose (for R2) 1st Respondent : Court ORDERThe petitioner is a State Transport Undertaking. Aggrieved by theaward of the Labour Court dated 16.12.1997 in I.D.No.379/1995 thepresent writ petition has been filed. 2.The second respondent was a driver and while he was drivingthe bus on 28.10.1993 the bus met with an accident. It collided withanother bus belonging to Thiruvallur Transport Corporation and in thatprocess 13 passengers died and severe damage was caused to both thevehicles. Three charges were levelled against the second respondent,namely, causing loss due to rash and negligent driving to the TransportCorporation bus which resulted in the death of 13 persons; causing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ severe loss to the Transport Corporation due to the vehicle beingdamaged;and having driven the vehicle with over speed, contrary to thetraffic rules. A domestic enquiry was conducted by the department andthe 2nd respondent was dismissed by order dated 11.1.1994. Against thedismissal a dispute was raised by the second respondent and the same wasfinally came to be taken by the 1st respondent as I.D.No.379/1995. Onthe side of the second respondent the counter filed by the petitionercorporation in M.C.O.P.No.76/1994 was filed. On the side of the writpetitioner 14 documents were filed, marked as Exs.M.1 to M.14. TheLabour Court held the enquiry conducted against the petitioner wasproper and it was not vitiated. On the question of findings the LabourCourt held that the third charge, namely, over speed and drivingcontrary to the traffic rules was not proved. With reference to thefirst two charges it was held that they were proved. Not only thesecond respondent, even the driver of the other bus was also heldjointly responsible for the loss. In that view of the matter, theLabour Court directed reinstatement without backwages but withcontinuity of service. However, the management submitted that thesecond respondent has got a previous record. The Labour Court took thatalso into account. It is aggrieved by that award, the present writpetition is filed. 3.Pending the writ petition this Court by an order dated6.12.1999 directed a sum of Rs.60,000/- to be deposited to the credit ofI.D.No.379/1995 with the Labour Court. Out of which, the secondrespondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.10,000/-. The balance amountwas to be invested in a nationalised bank at Trichy for a period ofthree years. However, in terms of section 17 B of the IndustrialDisputes Act 1947, the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.2,400/-every month starting from January 2000 and it is stated that the saidorder has been complied with. 4.Today the learned counsel for the petitioner after referringto the findings recorded by the Labour Court brought to the notice ofthis Court two judgments. The first one is reported in 2000 (2) LLJ 902(ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., V. P.O., LABOUR COURT). In thatjudgment this Court held that there cannot be any limitation on thepowers of the labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to adifferent conclusion. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is not powerless to interfere with such conclusion if there isperversity. In that same judgment which deals with the case of accidentthis Court held that even in the absence of any other eye-witness, thetheory of `res ipso loquitur' can be applied and the Court can find outas to who was responsible for the accident and the negligence of thedriver can also be ascertained. Hence, the award passed by the LabourCourt in favour of the driver who drove the vehicle negligently was setaside.5.The learned counsel also referred to the Supreme Courtjudgment reported in 2001(2) LLJ 391 (DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A.M.GOUD (D) BY LRs). In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that theaward of the Labour Court in spite of the rash and negligent driving onthe part of the driver and not considering the past history directingthe relief of reinstatement was illegal. But the workman expired by thetime the matter reached Supreme Court. The matter was not remitted backto the Labour Court and therefore prayed for setting aside the Award ofthe Labour court in ordering reinstatement.6.Mr.Ajay ghose, learned counsel for the second respondentsubmitted that the second respondent was proceeded in a criminalcase, though convicted by the Sessions Court in C.C.No.163/95 dated12.5.2004, on revision in Crl.R.C.No.2/2005 by a judgment dated14.11.2006 this Court set aside the punishment. He also referred to thefollowing portion found in para 11 of the said judgment which reads asfollows :"At this juncture, it would be apropos to look intothe evidence of one P.T.Thomas who has been examined asPW4. He had clearly stated in his evidence that on thefateful date of accident, he travelled in TTC Bus alongwith his wife and three children and also with hisrelatives and the TTC Bus had been driven by the secondaccused Kamatchi and in the place of occurrence one lorrywas proceedings from west to east and the second accusedhad overtaken the same and the first accused, driver ofRMTC bus had applied brake and due to that the accidenthad occurred. From the other records available in thiscase, the Court is able to find out that the front portionof TTC Bus had dashed against the rear portion of RMTCBus, but it is not the case of head on collision. Sincethe Court is having a clear evidence to the fact that thesecond accused had overtaken a lorry in the place ofoccurrence, the Court can easily come to the conclusionthat the entire accident had happened only due to rash andnegligent driving of the second accused. If really theaccident had taken place due to rash and negligent drivingof both the accused, definitely head on collision wouldhave happened in the place of occurrence. Therefore, itis made clear that the accident had taken place only dueto rash and negligent driving of the second accused,driver of TTC Bus. The Courts below had not analysedabove aspect properly and erroneously, come to theconclusion that the first accused was also liable foraccident."7.In so far as the domestic enquiry conducted against theworkman was concerned there was no eye witness and only the sketch ofthe area was filed and taken note of. However, in the Criminal Court,P.W.4-P.T.Thomas was an eye witness and after accepting his evidence inthe Criminal Revision this Court gave a categoric finding that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent had not driven the vehicle in a rash and negligentmanner. On that basis (though the said judgment had come subsequently)yet in the interest of justice we cannot ignore the material fact infavour of the second respondent. 8.Mr.S.Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner afterperusal of the order is unable to comment upon the finding given by thisCourt in the criminal case. 9.In view of the above, in order to render justice the saidjudgment is also looked into for the purpose of arriving at a fairconclusion. In the present case the Labour Court has found the secondrespondent is not guilty of the third charge which relates to over speedand violation of traffic rules with reference to the accident. It fixesjoint responsibility which is a civil liability. In these circumstances,the award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality orinfirmity.10.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequentlyconnected pending miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 11.In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the secondrespondent is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- togetherwith interest lying in deposit with the Labour Court.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsalTo1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Tiruchirappalli+1cc to Mr.s.Jayaraman, Advocate Sr.21821+1cc to Mr.D.Hariparanthaman Advocate Sr.22172W.P.NO.6097 of 1998 17.4.2008DM(CO)rvr 12/05/08