Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.12895 of 2021For Petitioner : Mr.M.AswinFor Respondents for R1 : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose for R2 : M/s.M.Jayanthy, Additional Government Pleader ORDERThe Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order, dated 16.10.2018, dismissing the Approval Application No.225 of 2014 of the petitioner/Corporation, seeking approval of its dismissal order dated 19.06.2014 dismissing the first respondent from service.2. The petitioner will be referred to as Corporation and the first respondent as workman.3. The facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows: i) The workman was employed as a driver in Vandavasi Branch, of the Corporation. While so, on 24.03.2011, when the workman was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 32 NN 2602, on the route No.422/B from Chennai to Thiruvannamalai, at about 14.30 hours, when the bus was nearing Vadavanakkampadi, the bus driven in a rash 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021and negligent manner went to the other side of the road and collided head-on with another bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 3426, thereby causing injuries to 35 passengers and death of 3 persons. ii) Pursuant to the accident, the petitioner Corporation suspended the workman from service on 25.03.2011. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the workman on 12.04.2011, calling for his explanation to the charge memo, but he did not submit any explanation. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed and a notice was issued to the first respondent, on 06.09.2012. On receipt of the said notice, the first respondent appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted his explanation on 20.12.2012. Thereafter, on 28.06.2013, the enquiry officer submitted his report finding that the charges against the workman were proved. A show cause notice was issued to the workman on 12.09.2013, seeking his further explanation to the enquiry report, to which, the workman submitted his explanation on 09.12.2013. Since the explanation of the workman was found unsatisfactory, the Corporation, accepting the enquiry report, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 19.06.2024. Thereafter, the Corporation filed an approval petition, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021Act, before the second respondent. However, the second respondent dismissed the said application on 16.10.2018. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Counter affidavit is not filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition. 5. It is seen from the impugned order that, the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour/second respondent framed 5 issues, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Lall Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works”, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004, which read as follows: “1)cs;tprhuiz rl;lj;jpw;F - epiyahizf;F cl;gl;Lk; ,aw;if epajpf;Fl;gl;Lk; elj;jg;gl;Ls;sjh>2)ntiyePf;fj;jpw;Fhpa Kjy;epiy tHf;F (Prima Facie) cs;tprhuizapy; rl;lg;go Vw;Wf;bfhs;sf;Toa rhl;rpaj;jpd; (Evidence) mog;gilapy; epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>3)kDjhuh; eph;thfk; vjph;kDjhuh; kPJ vLj;j ntiyePf;f eltof;if bjhHpyhsh; 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021tpnuhj nghf;fpw;fhf gHpth';Fk; eltof;if my;yhky; cz;ikapy; bjhHpyhsp Fw;wthsp vd;w Kot[f;F te;Js;shuh>4) bjhHpyhspf;F xUkhj rk;gsk; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sjh>5) kDjhuh; eph;thfk; bjhHpyhsp kPJ vLf;fg;gl;l eltof;ifapd; Xu';fkhfnth my;yJ FWfpa fhyj;jpw;Fs;shfnth rk;ge;jg;gl;l mjpfhhpapd; Kd; mDkjp tpz;zg;gk; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shuh>”6. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour except issue No.5, found all the other issues issues against the Corporation. Let me first consider issue No.4. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour found that there was statutory violation since the full one month wages of Rs.6,900/- was not paid to the workman. However, the records reveal that the Corporation paid Rs.6,900/- to the workman through a cheque dated 06.06.2014, towards his one month salary.7. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour merely based on the contention of the workman that one month salary was not paid, decided the issue against the Corporation. In this Court, the workman 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021filed a petition under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, for payment of last drawn wages. In the affidavit filed in support of the said 17-B petition, in para 8 of the affidavit, the workman has categorically admitted that as on the date of dismissal, he was drawing wages of Rs.6,900/- per month. In view of the categorical admission of the workman in the 17-B affidavit, the finding of the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour on issue No.4, cannot be sustained.8. With regard to issue Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4, the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour held that, since the findings of the enquiry officer, were based on the evidence of the Assistant Engineer, in the absence of examination of any one of the eye witnesses to the accident, the findings could not be accepted. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour solely on the ground of non-examination of an eyewitness to the accident found issue Nos.1 to 4 against the Corporation.9. In my view, the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour failed to note the settled legal position that non-examination of an eye-witness does not render the finding of guilt and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority invalid. In “The Management of Tamil Nadu 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited vs. M.Chandrasekaran, reported in 2016 16 SCC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere non-examination of independent witness, does not render the finding of guilt or punishment invalid. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:“14. In the present case, the sole reason which weighed with the Commissioner was that no independent witness was produced—not even a single passenger of the bus was examined by the Department. The decision relied on by the appellant squarely deals even with this reasoning. It has been held that in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298] the Court held that mere non-examination of passenger does not render the finding of guilt and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority invalid. Similar view has been taken in Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane [Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 407] . Both these decisions have been noticed in the reported decision relied on by the appellant. The burden to prove that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence, is on the employee, as expounded in Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab [Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 9 SCC 208 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1183] referred to in the reported 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021decision.”10. It is also well established that the jurisdiction of the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour under Sec. 33(2)(b) is limited to finding out if a prima facie case is made out and whether the domestic enquiry was validly conducted. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. vs. G.Thirugnanasambandam, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:“18. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal while considering an application for grant of approval has succinctly been stated by this Court in Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee [AIR 1958 SC 79 : 1958 SCR 514] . While exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out as regards the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the delinquent, keeping in view the fact that if the permission or approval is granted, the order of discharge or dismissal which may be passed against the delinquent employee would be liable to be challenged in an appropriate proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Martin Burn case [AIR 1958 SC 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 202179 : 1958 SCR 514] this Court stated: (AIR p. 85, para 27)“A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. It may be that the Tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on the evidence on the record. (See Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the Company [1952 Lab AC 490] .)”11. The strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiries or to Administrative Tribunals. The Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana and Another vs. Rattan Singh” reported in (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 491, has categorically held as follows:“4. ...... The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence – not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in the way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, in some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to find that the order is invalid on that ground.”12. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case, this Court finds from a perusal of the enquiry proceedings, that the enquiry officer, has not only relied on the evidence of the Assistant-Engineer, but also relied on the Ex.M6, the photographs which established that the workman crossed over the other side of the road, which made the opposite driver, to turn the bus to his left. The enquiry officer found that the workman had taken inconsistent stand regarding the accident. The enquiry officer found that 35 passengers were injured, 3 died, and both the buses sustained severe damages and therefore on preponderance of probability held that the charges were proved. The 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021nature of the accident, viz., head-on collision between two heavy passengers vehicles, the resultant loss of life, injuries to several passengers and extensive damages to the vehicles, clearly attracts the principle of Res ipsa loquitur. At this juncture, it will be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd. vs. G.Thirugnanasambandam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 34 held as follows:“34. This decision also has no application to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court misdirected themselves in law insofar as they failed to pose unto themselves correct questions. It is now well settled that a quasi-judicial authority must pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct finding of fact. A wrong question posed leads to a wrong answer. In this case, furthermore, the misdirection in law committed by the Industrial Tribunal was apparent insofar as it did not apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur which was relevant for the purpose of this case and, thus, failed to take into consideration a relevant factor and furthermore took into consideration an irrelevant fact not germane for determining the issue, namely, that the passengers of the bus were mandatorily required to be examined. The 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021Industrial Tribunal further failed to apply the correct standard of proof in relation to a domestic enquiry, which is “preponderance of probability” and applied the standard of proof required for a criminal trial. A case for judicial review was, thus, clearly made out.”13. So also in The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited vs. M.Chandrasekaran reported in 2016 16 SCC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:“15. Applying the principle stated in Cholan Roadways Ltd. [Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, (2005) 3 SCC 241 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 395] , what needs to be considered is about the probative value of the evidence showing the extensive damage caused to the bus as well as motorcar; the fatal injuries caused to several persons resulting in death; and that the nature of impact raises an inference that the bus was driven by the respondent rashly or negligently. The material relied on by the Department during the enquiry supported the fact that the respondent was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and because of the high speed of his vehicle the impact was so severe that the two vehicles were extensively damaged and the passengers travelling in the vehicle suffered fatal injuries resulting in death of five persons on the spot and four 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021persons in the hospital besides the injuries to nine persons. These facts stood established from the material relied on by the Department, as a result of which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur came into play and the burden shifted on the respondent who was in control of the bus to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part. Neither the Commissioner nor the High Court considered the matter on that basis nor posed unto themselves the correct question which was relevant for deciding the application under Section 33(2)(b). On the other hand, the order of punishment dated 13-10-2003, ex facie, reveals that the report of the enquiry officer referring to the relevant material established the factum and the nature of accident warranting an inference that the respondent had driven the bus rashly and negligently. Further, the observation in the unreported decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court was not relevant for deciding the application under Section 33(2)(b). Significantly, the order of punishment also adverts to the past history of the respondent indicative of the respondent having faced similar departmental action on thirty-two occasions, including for having committed minor as well as fatal accidents while performing his duty. ”14. In my view, the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021ought to have applied the principle of Res ipsa loquitur in this case. I therefore find that the findings of the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour on issues 1 to 3 are unsustainable and hence the order rejecting the approval petition is set aside. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour is directed to approve the approval application within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.15. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.13.10.2025Index : YespvsToThe Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,Chennai.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12895 of 2021N.MALA, J., pvsW.P.No.12895 of 202113.10.202515/15