S. Balasubramaniam v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.6.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMARWRIT PETITION NO.4826 OF 2001S. Balasubramaniam... PetitionerVs.

The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore.

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division (I) (Formerly known as Cheran Transport Corporation) No.37, Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore – 641 016.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamuscalling for the records pertaining to the impugned award passed bythe first respondent in I.D.No.255/97, dated 29.9.2000, quash thesame and consequently direct the second respondents to reinstate thepetitioner with backwages and continuity of service. For Petitioner : Mr. V. Ajay KhoseFor R2 : Mr. Jayesh B. DoliaO R D E RThe prayer in this writ petition is to quash the award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No.255/1997, dated 29.9.2000 and direct thesecond respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages andcontinuity of service.2. The dismissal of the petitioner on 8.4.1996 was confirmed bythe Labour Court in the said award.

The petitioner was placed under suspension from 27.5.1995 onthe ground that he caused an accident on 25.5.1995. A charge memo wasalso issued on 10.6.1995 stating that the petitioner drove the busbelonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TCB 1548plying from Ukkadam to Kottai Palayam route on 25.5.1995 and when thebus reached near Sharp Nagar at about 7.10 a.m., he drove the bus ina rash and negligent manner due to which the bus capsized into a piton the left side of the road and 7 persons got injured and 6 of themtook treatment in the private hospital as out-patients and one personwas admitted in Coimbatore Government Hospital and the petitioner wasresponsible for the damage caused to the bus to the value ofRs.4000/- and the petitioner also caused revenue loss to the tune ofRs.1541.05 to the Transport Corporation.

The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges andalso prayed for revocation of suspension. The suspension order wasrevoked and he was permitted to rejoin duty. The explanation beingnot satisfactory, domestic enquiry was conducted and the EnquiryOfficer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner areproved. The Deputy Manager-Legal issued second show cause notice on10.11.1995 and stated that the management concurs with the findingsof the Enquiry Officer and proposed the punishment of dismissal fromservice. The petitioner submitted further representation on23.1.1996. After considering the same, the order of dismissal waspassed on 8.4.1996 dismissing the petitioner with effect from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.4.1996. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was tried asI.D.No.255/1997 by the first respondent. The said I.D., having beendismissed, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the abovesaid prayer.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well aslearned counsel for the second respondent.

The point for consideration is whether the dismissal of thepetitioner from his service is justified or not. The finding of the enquiry officer was that the width of theroad is sufficient to go two vehicles. The petitioner drove the busin a rash and negligent manner and if the bus was driven cautiously, the accident could have been avoided. Though lack of skill of thepetitioner was not framed as a charge for the continuance as driverin a transport vehicle, testing the skill or capacity of the driveris not illegal. The management and the first respondent analysed thematerial aspects including the documents filed on the side of themanagement viz., Ex.M11 dated 27.6.1995 and Ex.M12 dated 4.4.1996. InExs.M11 and M12, it is stated that the petitioner's ability to drivethe vehicle was assessed and it was found that the petitioner islacking efficiency/skill in driving the heavy vehicle and a copy ofEx.M12 dated 4.4.1996 is also filed in the typed set of papers andthe translated version of the same reads as follows:-" As per Ref. No.1, the case of Driver ThiruS.Balasubramaniam, Pa.No.16838 has been referred forreassessment, to know his driving capacity. The reassessmentrevealed that he has no sufficient capacity for operatingthe vehicle. Therefore, he is declared to be unfit tooperate the passenger bus and heavy duty vehicles. Sd/Sr. Deputy Manager (Training)Cheran Training Institute Coimbatore RoadPollachi – 642 002."

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the secondrespondent, the Disciplinary Authority considered the report of the Deputy Manager-Training dated 4.4.1996 as well as earlier assessmentof the petitioner's ability to drive the vehicle and based on thecertificates of assessment, the order of dismissal was passed. Sincethe disciplinary authority has given a finding that the petitioner isunfit to drive heavy vehicles, particularly transport bus, based onthe certificates of assessment given by Senior Deputy Manager(Training), the petitioner cannot contend that the dismissal orderpassed against the petitioner should be set aside and he should beordered to be reinstated with backwages. The findings given by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Labour Court is also based on the certificates of inability (lack ofskill) of the petitioner which is found in paragraph-9 of the Awardof the Labour Court. There is no perversity in the said findingscalling for interference by this Court in this writ petition.

The drivers who are driving public transport buses must befully trained and must have the capacity to drive the buses, thenonly accidents can be prevented. From the statistics available, moreaccidents are happening in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is worthy notethat as per statistics, the accidents happened in Tamil Nadu are asfollows: YearNumber of accidents occurredNumber of persons died20056040997602006551451100920075914012036200860409127849. From the above details, it is evident that more people arekilled due to motor vehicle accidents. To prevent such kinds ofaccidents and loss of human life, effective steps are to be taken toascertain the capacity/driving skills of drivers. The TransportCorporation is therefore, perfectly justified in assessing thecapacity of the petitioner who was its driver. The Senior DeputyManager (Training) on three occasions found that the petitioner islacking the skills of driving heavy vehicle. The petitioner isasserting his right to work. The authorities are bound to take careof the safety of passengers, pedestrians and persons travelling inother vehicles i.e. public interest. Hence, the second respondent isbound to verify the ability of the petitioner to drive heavy vehicle.A person who has no capacity/skill to drive a heavy vehicle is notentitled to claim that he should be reinstated as driver of the Transport Corporation. The findings given by the expert is binding onthe second respondent and the same was relied on and order ofdismissal was passed which was rightly confirmed by the firstrespondent-Labour Court. There is no illegality in the said orders.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner having been found unfit to drive the transport bus, he maybe given an alternate job as he was already selected and thepetitioner is willing to do any job, which may be assigned to him.

In view of the said submission made by the learned counselfor the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make arepresentation before the second respondent and it is open to thesecond respondent to consider the said representation and pass orderson merits and in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/