The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,(Salem) Ltd v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :19.07.2010CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMW.P.No.12341 of 2006 &W.P.M.P.No.13939/2006The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,(Salem) Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director,Salem. ...Petitioner Vs.1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.2.P.Murugesan ...Respondents Prayer : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for therecords of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.340 of 2003 dated 08.03.2005and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.T.Pappaiah Dharmarajan Mr.Sankaranarana Pandian for R2 ORDERBy consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up fordisposal. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ ofCertiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Salem dated08.03.2005 in I.D.No.340 of 2003.2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd, isthe petitioner. The second respondent was working as a driver in thepetitioner corporation and while he was on duty on 08.11.2000, anaccident occurred, which according to the management, is on accountof rash and negligence driving of the bus by the second respondent.A Criminal case was filed and departmental charge memo dated16.1.2000 was issued. The second respondent submitted hisexplanation on 20.11.2000 and thereafter, domestic enquiry wasconducted and the enquiry report was forwarded to the secondrespondent and second show cause notice dated 30.01.2001 was issuedproposing the punishment of dismissal. The second respondentsubmitted his further explanation dated 23.02.2001 and not beingsatisfied with the explanation, the petitioner management dismissed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the second respondent from service by order dated 05.03.2001. As suchdismissal from service the second respondent raised an industrialdispute before the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.340 of 2003 and theLabour Court by its award dated 08.03.2005 ordered reinstatement ofthe second respondent in service with continuity of service, butwithout backwages and other benefits. Aggrieved by such award, thepetitioner Management has filed the present writ petition.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldcontend that the Labour Court erred in rendering a finding that thedocuments filed on behalf of the petitioner Management did not provethat the second respondent alone was responsible for the accident.It is further contended that the Labour Court ought to have takeninto consideration, the past conduct of the petitioner and ought tohave held that the charges are proved and the Police had alsoregistered a criminal case against the second respondent. Therefore,the learned counsel would submit that the impugned award is liable tobe set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent wouldcontend that the Labour Court appreciated the material available onrecord and came to a conclusion that the punishment imposed by thepetitioner is unsustainable and ordered for reinstatement withoutbackwages. The finding of the Labour Court is based on appreciationof evidence on record and this Court should not upset such factualconclusion. The learned counsel would further submit that thecriminal case, which was taken on file as C.C. No.345 of 2004 on thefile of the Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem has ended in acquittal byJudgment dated 02.11.2009 and the criminal Court recorded a findingthat the victim in the accident was under the influence of alcohol.Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondentsubmits that the writ petition is devoid of merits.5. I have carefully considered the submissions on either sideand perused the materials available on record. 6. Before, going into the factual contentions raised by eitherside, it is necessary to consider the scope and jurisdiction of thisCourt to issue a writ of Certiorari in cases involving orders passedby the Labour Court and quasi-judicial authorities. The ConstitutionBench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, while considering this aspect held ashereunder:-"...................... A writ of certiorari can beissued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed byinferior Courts or Tribunals; these are cases where ordersare passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals withoutjurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failureto exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issuedwhere in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as forinstance, it decides a question without giving anopportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order,or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the disputeis opposed to principles of natural justice. There is,however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ ofcertiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Courtexercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court.This limitation necessarily means that findings of factreached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result ofthe appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened orquestioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which isapparent on the face of the record can be corrected by awrit, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appearto be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by theTribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shownthat in recording the said finding, the Tribunal haderroneously refused to admit admissible and materialevidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidencewhich has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if afinding of fact is based on no evidence, that would beregarded as an error of law which can be corrected by awrit of certiorari. In dealing with this category ofcases, however, we must always bear in mind that a findingof fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged iniproceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that therelevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunalwas insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugnedfinding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on apoint and the inference of fact to be drawn from the saidfinding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of theTribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before awrit Court. It is within these limits that thejurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimatelyexercised." The decision of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench was subsequentlyfollowed in several decisions and also reiterated by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the latest decision in Anoop Sharma Vs. ExecutiveEngineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) 2010 3 LLJ 1(SC).7. Bearing in mind the above legal principle, if the impugnedaward is examined, it is seen that the petitioner corporation marked12 documents in support of their contention and the Labour Courtframed two issues for consideration, whether the punishment ofdismissal from service is just and reasonable and as to what relief,the second respondent is entitled to. The Labour Court came to aconclusion that the domestic enquiry was properly held and therefore https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ no preliminary order is necessary. Neither, the petitioner nor thesecond respondent examined any witnesses. On perusal of thedeposition of the various witnesses examined during the domesticenquiry including that of the second respondent, the Labour Courtrecorded a finding that the victim in the accident was under theinfluence of alcohol and therefore held that the second respondentalone cannot be held to be solely responsible for the accident.Further, the Labour Court considering the past conduct of the secondrespondent and came to a conclusion that denial of backwages andbenefits would be an appropriate punishment for the second respondentand therefore ordered for reinstatement without backwages andbenefits. 8. In my view, the Labour Court cannot be faulted in itsapproach neither can it be stated that there is any perversity in thefinding warranting interference by this Court in exercises of itsjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not a case,where the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible andmaterial evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence,which has influenced the impugned finding. Further, it is not acase, where the finding of fact is based on no evidence. It is to benoted that the finding of the Criminal Court, which renderedJudgment, subsequently, that is on 12.09.2000, has also rendered afactual finding that the victim was under the influence of alcohol.9. Hence, there is no error in the award passed by the LabourCourt. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarpbn ToThe Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Salem.Copy to:The Section Officer, VR Section,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.M.Ravibharathi, Advocate, SR.521591 cc To Mr.T.Pappiah Dharmarajan, Advocate, SR.52032W.P.No.12341 of 2006MRD(CO)sra 23/07/2010