The Management of Metropolitan Transport CorporationPallavan Salai v. The Presiding Officer I Additional Labour Court Chennai2.R.Chandra Mohan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.46234 of 2006andMP Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 and 2 of 2007The Management of Metropolitan Transport CorporationPallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002,(Formerly known The Management ofMetropolitan Transport CorporationChennai Division II, AyanavaramChennai 23).. Petitioner vs1.The Presiding Officer I Additional Labour Court Chennai2.R.Chandra Mohan.. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records inI.D.No.111/2000 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, andquash the order dated 27.2.2006.For Petitioner: Mr.G.MuniratnamFor Respondents: Mr.S.Ravi for R2ORDERChallenge is made to an award of the I Additional Labour Court,Chennai, in I.D.No.111 of 2000 whereby an order of dismissal of service ofthe second respondent Driver attached to the Metropolitan TransportCorporation, Madras, was set aside.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petitioncan be stated thus:The second respondent joined the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation asDriver in the year 1986. In 1989, he was given employment in the otherTransport Corporation. He was again transferred to Pallavan TransportCorporation. When there was a bifurcation, he was transferred to thepetitioner Corporation. Pursuant to an accident that took place, he wassuspended on 16.10.1998. A charge memo was served upon him in respect ofwhich he tendered his explanation. It was not found satisfactory by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ management. Following a domestic enquiry, findings were recorded that thecharges levelled against him, were proved. Then, the second show causenotice was issued to him. He tendered his explanation following which anorder of termination was made. He challenged the same before the firstrespondent Labour Court. The Labour Court on enquiry, set aside the orderof termination which is challenged by the Transport Corporation in thiswrit petition. 4.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner TransportCorporation, the learned Counsel would urge that it is not in controversythat an accident took place at about 8.30 A.M. on 14.10.1998 when thesecond respondent Driver was driving the vehicle from Anna Square towardsArumbakkam near Spurtank Road; that in the said accident, the bus dashedagainst a Kinetic Honda which came from the opposite direction overtakinga Car; that further, he has taken the bus towards the extreme right sideof the Road and dashed against an Ambassador Car, an Auto and anotherKinetic Honda, and thus, he has injured five persons and also damaged theproperties; that there was a proper enquiry after the charges werelevelled against him and the explanation was not found satisfactory; thatthe principles of natural justice were strictly adhered to; that the orderof termination that was passed, was to be justified; but, the Labour Courthas set it aside on the ground that as per the documentary evidenceavailable, it would be quite evident that the second respondent did notdrive the vehicle rashly and negligently, and hence, he was notresponsible for the accident; that the said finding is not correct, butfactually erroneous; that even the documentary evidence would clearlyindicate that he was responsible for the accident, and after dashing thevehicle against a Kinetic Honda and causing severe injury on the personwho drove that two wheeler, he took the vehicle to the extreme right anddashed against an Ambassador Car, an Auto and another Kinetic Honda andcaused injuries to five persons; that under the circumstances, the non-examination of an independent witness will not in any way affect thecharges; that a scrutiny of the documentary evidence would clearly revealthat he was responsible for the accident; that the Labour Court has failedto apply the doctrine of res ipsa lequitur; that the accident that hastaken place, would speak for itself; that without applying the same, theLabour Court has taken a different view and set aside the order oftermination, and hence, the writ petition has got to be ordered.5.In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Counsel forthe second respondent that in the instant case, the Corporation has notexamined one eyewitness; that even the Official of the management went tothe spot at 9.00 A.M. when the accident has taken place at 8.30 A.M.; thateven the documentary evidence and in particular, the rough sketch reliedon by the management, would clearly indicate that the accident has takenplace on the left side of the divider; that this would clearly indicatethat the bus in question was driven by the second respondent on thecorrect side; that the person who was driving the Kinetic Honda, has comeon the wrong side and dashed against the bus; that in order to save thesituation, the second respondent had taken the bus to the right extreme;that in that course, the accident has taken place which was out of his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ control; that all the materials were thoroughly analyzed by the LabourCourt; that the Labour Court has taken a correct decision, and hence, ithas got to be sustained and the writ petition be dismissed. 6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.7.It is not in controversy that an accident has taken place at about8.30 A.M. near Spurtank Road when the second respondent was driving thevehicle belonging to the Corporation, from Anna Square to Arumbakkam. Itis also not in controversy that in that accident, the bus dashed againstthe person who was driving a Kinetic Honda, and it also dashed against anAmbassador Car, an Auto and a Kinetic Honda. In the said accident, onedied, and five persons were injured. It is also an admitted position thatan Official of the department visited the spot at about 9.00 A.M. when theaccident took place at about 8.30 A.M. Now, the non-examination of aneyewitness in a case like this and that too, in a domestic enquiry, cannotbe said to be one which would go against the case of the management. Thecharge that was levelled against him, was that it was he who wasresponsible for the accident since he drove the vehicle rashly andnegligently. In the instant case, no one eyewitness was examined; but,the Enquiry Officer relied on the documents that were produced, in orderto record a finding that it was the second respondent who was responsiblefor the accident. The Labour Court has set it aside only on the groundthat even the documents if scrutinized, would clearly reveal that it wasthe Scooterist who crossed the traffic edge of the road, came to the wrongside and hit against the bus, and the rough sketch drawn by theInvestigator and marked as Ex.M2, would clearly establish that when thebus came along its right direction as per the traffic rules, theScooterist came to the wrong side and hit against the front side portionof the bus, and then only, the bus moved to the right side of the road.True it is, when the rough sketch which was relied on by the management,was looked into, it would be quite clear that the accident has taken placeon the left side of the divider. 8.Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that when suchan accident has taken place, even assuming that the vehicle was coming inthe opposite direction on the roadside, there was all possibility for himimmediately stopping the vehicle; but, on the contrary what is foundherein is that the bus at the time of inspection was found at the rightextreme of the road, and thus, before it came to a halt, it dashed againstan Ambassador Car, an Auto and another Kinetic Honda. It has caused notonly damage to the properties, but also injury to five persons. In theinstant case, the Labour Court has taken into consideration the accidentwhich commenced. Now, the contentions put forth by the petitioner'sCounsel have got to be seen. Though there is no direct evidence, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where thedoctrine of res ipsa lequitur has got to be applied. Even assuming thatthere was initial dash, he should have averted the later part of theaccident by applying the brake, but not done so. It remains to be statedthat three vehicles have been further dashed, and five persons wereinjured. The fact that he could not apply the brake and immediately stopthe vehicle would indicate that the bus was driven by him rashly andnegligently at the time when the accident has taken place. Once a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ responsibility and a duty are in the shoulders of the driver, who is thesecond respondent herein, to take the vehicle and that too, in a publicplace, it was not done by him, and a thorough failure is noticed. In suchcircumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the LabourCourt has got to be set aside and the order of termination of service bythe Enquiry Officer be restored. Accordingly, it is set aside, and thiswrit petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs areclosed.nsv/Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Presiding OfficerI Additional Labour CourtChennai+ One CC to Mr. G. Munirathnam, Advocate SR 60220+ One cc to Mr. S. Ravi Advocate sR 59824GGK (co)sg 10/10/07WP No.46234 of 2006Dt: 26-9-2007