High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 07.11.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHIW.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019andW.M.P.(MD)Nos.16220, 16221 and 17138 of 2019The Management through the General Manager,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,Tirunelveli Ltd.,Tirunelveli Region,Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli. ... Petitioner inall W.Ps.versusThe General Secretary,Nellai District Transport CorporationEmployees UnionInfront of Government Transport Head Quarters,Tirunelveli – 3.... Respondent inall W.Ps.Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.19734 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, relating to the impugned award passed by it in I.D.No.15 of 2014 dated 27.07.2015 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.19736 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, relating to the impugned award passed by it in I.D.No.14 of 2014 dated 27.07.2015 and 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019quash the same. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.20496 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, relating to the impugned award passed by it in I.D.No.6 of 2016 dated 26.12.2016 and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.K.Sathiya Singhin all W.Ps. Standing Counsel For Respondentin all W.Ps.: Mr.S.Arunachalam COMMON ORDERThe Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed these writ petitions as against the orders passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in I.D.Nos.15 and 14 of 2014 dated 27.07.2015 and I.D.No.6 of 2016 dated 26.12.2016 respectively. W.P.(MD)No.19734 of 2019:2. An industrial dispute in I.D.No.15 of 2014 was raised by the respondent Union to return a sum of Rs.30,000/- which has been recovered from its Member, one Malai, a Conductor, for the stolen ticket books in the bus. The Labour Court, by order dated 27.07.2015, allowed the Industrial Dispute, directing the Management to return a sum of Rs.30,000/- together 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019with 12% interest. Challenging the same, the Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition. W.P.(MD)No.19736 of 2019:3. Similarly, another industrial dispute in I.D.No.14 of 2014 was raised by the respondent Union to return a sum of Rs.12,325/- which has been recovered from its Member, one K.Jothi, a Conductor, for the stolen ticket books in the bus and to set aside the order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment for three months. The Labour Court, by order dated 27.07.2015, allowed the Industrial Dispute, by setting aside the order of punishment and also directed the Management to return a sum of Rs.12,325/- together with 12% interest. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed by the Transport Corporation. W.P.(MD)No.20496 of 20194. Yet another industrial dispute in I.D.No.6 of 2016 was raised by the respondent Union to return a sum of Rs.23,290/- which has been recovered from its Member, one P.Kalyani, a Conductor, for the stolen ticket books in the bus. The Labour Court, by order dated 26.12.2016, allowed the Industrial Dispute, directing the Management to return a sum of Rs.23,290/- 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019after deducting a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards loss, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Since all the writ petitions are arising out of the same issue, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. W.P.(MD)No.19734 of 20196. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.19734 of 2019 is concerned, the case of the respondent Union is that its member one Malai, who was on duty as Conductor in Route No.333 on 11.01.2010 from Chennai to Srivaikundam, has kept the ticket bundles in the bus rack and the same was found missing when he left the bus for attending natural call. He said to have lodged a complaint before the Srivaikundam Police Station. However, the Management has directed the said Conductor to pay the cost of stolen tickets. The said Conductor has also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the stolen tickets to the Management. The Union has raised this Industrial Dispute that the recovery of the Management for the stolen ticket is against the Clause 17 of the Settlement dated 06.02.2008 arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Hence, they raised the above Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court has also allowed the same. 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019W.P.(MD)No.19736 of 20197. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.19736 of 2019 is concerned, the case of the respondent Union is that its member one K.Jothi, who was on duty as Conductor on 19.11.2007 in Route No.387-A, lost the ticket bundles in the box, which was safely kept in front side of the bus. According to him, he issued tickets to the passengers at Vilathikulam Bus Stand, at that time, he found that the ticket bundles were lost. He said to have lodged a complaint before the Vilathikulam Police Station. Therefore, the Management passed an order of punishment as against the said Conductor on 17.07.2008, imposing stoppage of increment for three months with cumulative effect and also recovered a sum of Rs.12,325/- from him. The Union has raised this Industrial Dispute that the recovery of the Management for the stolen ticket is against the Clause 17 of the Settlement dated 06.02.2008 arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, they raised the above Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court has also allowed the same. W.P.(MD)No.20496 of 2019:8. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.20496 of 2019 is concerned, the case of the respondent Union is that its member one Kalyani, who was on duty as Conductor on 08.10.2012 in Route No.163, lost the ticket bundles in the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019box, which was safely kept in front side of the bus. He said to have lodged a complaint before the concerned Police. However, the Management has directed the said Conductor to pay the cost of stolen tickets. The said Conductor has also paid a sum of Rs.23,290/- towards the stolen tickets to the Management. The Union has raised this Industrial Dispute that the recovery of the Management for the stolen ticket is against the Clause 17 of the Settlement dated 06.02.2008 arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act . Hence, they raised the above Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court has also allowed the same. 9. The learned counsel for the Management, by referring to the settlement arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, submits that it is a protection provided for the loss of tickets on account of riot, accident or theft or robbery, for which, a case ought to have been registered. He has also referred to Clause 17 of the Settlement arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 06.02.2008, which is extracted as under:“gazr;rPl;L bjhiye;J nghFjy;Vw;fdnt cs;s xg;ge;jj;jpy; fytuk;. tpgj;J. fst[. bfhs;is nghd;wit eilbgw;W fhty; epiyaj;jpy; tHf;F 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhy; me;j NH;epiyapy; gazr;rPl;L g[j;j';fs; bjhiye;jpUf;Fnkahdhy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l elj;JehplkpUe;J gazr;rPl;L-g[j;jf';fSf;fhd bjhif gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gl khl;lhJ vd;w Kot[ bjhlh;e;J eilKiwg;gLj;jg;gLk;/” 10. The learned counsel by referring to the orders of the Tribunal and the documents marked on behalf of the respondent Union submits that they have simply filed complaints before the concerned Police Stations and obtained receipts and marked the same that a case has been registered. A criminal case can be treated as registered, only if an FIR has been registered. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the Conductor Malai was on duty from Chennai to Srivaikundam in Route No.333. He lodged this complaint for the loss of ticket books before the Srivaikundam Police Station. Further, the Conductor Jothi, who lost the ticket books at Vilathikulam Bus, has lodged a complaint before the Vilathikulam Police Station. Even in another case, the Conductor Kalyani claimed that he has also filed a complaint for the loss of ticket books. However, they have not adduced any evidence at which place they lost the ticket books. Further, 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019there is no investigation to that effect whether these complaints are genuine or not. Not even an FIR has been registered and neither the Conductors nor the Union has taken any initiative for prosecuting these complaints for missing of the ticket books. Based on the vague complaints and the receipts issued by the concerned Police Station, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the tickets have been stolen, for which, a complaint has been registered and therefore, there cannot be any recovery as per the settlement arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Labour Court in all the cases are perverse and the same are liable to be interfered. 12. Mr.S.Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union submits that the tickets which were kept in the bus were stolen. They have lodged a complaint before the Police Station. Therefore, as per the settlement arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the recovery of amount for the loss of tickets, which are stolen in the bus, cannot be recovered from the employees. The learned counsel has also relied on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.D.Jain vs. Management of State Bank of India and another reported in 1982 1 SCC 143 and submits 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019that the petitioner Management has not produced any materials, which have been produced before the Tribunal, to substantiate that the order passed by the Labour Court is erroneous and perverse.13. This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. Common findings:14. In all these three cases, a uniform stand has been taken by the employees/conductors that the ticket books, which were entrusted with them and kept in the bus rack, were found missing. This Court found that they have simply lodged complaints before the Police Station and obtained some receipts. The receipts issued by the Police Station have been marked on the side of the Conductors. Without even ascertaining the nature of complaints, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the tickets have been stolen and the complaints have been registered as per the settlement arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mere throwing of a complaint in the Police Station would not amount to registration of complaint. The receipts marked on behalf of the workers cannot lead to the conclusion that complaints lodged by the workers have been registered by the Police. The 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019complaint is said to be registered only if the complaint has been registered as an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 15. In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2014 SC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the lodging of an FIR that sets the criminal law into motion and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:“23. The FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal law procedure of our country and its main object from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty.”16. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Management, neither the Conductors who lost the tickets nor the Trade Union prosecuted the so-called complaints said to have been lodged by the Conductors. As 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019stated supra, the settlement arrived under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads that only on the registration of the complaint, it can be construed that the tickets have been stolen. Therefore, merely lodging a complaint would not suffice.17.In all these three cases, the complaints are said to have been lodged for the alleged missing of ticket books. Neither the complaints have been registered nor the conductors have taken any initiative to register the complaints. Therefore, the workmen are not entitled for the benefits under the 12(3) settlement. The Labour Court without even verifying whether any FIR has been registered or not, has simply proceeded based on the receipts produced by the workmen. Therefore, this court is inclined to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court and accordingly, all these three writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07.11.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex :Yes/No Internet : Yes/Noogy11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 2019B.PUGALENDHI,J.ogyW.P.(MD)Nos.19734, 19736 and 20496 of 201907.11.202512/12