Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 3/5
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 12(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.78 of 2026the respondents to consider and decide the the petitioner’s representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt…
Judgment
W.P(MD)No.78 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 05.01.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHIW.P(MD)No.78 of 2026K.Jeyaseelan ... PetitionerVs1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai Division, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai.
The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Dindigul Region, Bye-Pass Road, Dindigul. ...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to review the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect, passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 30.05.2011 vide proceedings in Reference SaThu: A7/475 and to disburse yearly increment benefits 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.78 of 2026and in furtherance advance review benefits by taking into account of his acquittal in the Criminal Case in C.C. No.332 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam vice Judgment dated 13.08.2012 as per the Settlement made Under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.For Petitioner : Mr.J. Lawrance, For Respondents : Mr.Gladson Michael Rajadurai Standing Counsel
O R D E R This petitioner is working as a driver in the respondent Transport Corporation. While he was on duty on 09.08.2010, a passenger, who travelled in the footboard fell down and succumbed to injuries. Therefore, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated as against this petitioner and he was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. For the very same incident, a criminal case has also been registered in Crime No.769 of 2010, on the file of Thenkarai Police Station, on 09.08.2010. On completion of investigation, a final report was also filed. However, during the trial, none has supported 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.78 of 2026the case of the prosecution and the criminal case registered as against this petitioner ended in acquittal. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation, by referring to Clause 61 of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that if the departmental proceedings are initiated based on a criminal case and if the criminal case ended in acquittal on merits or is dropped by the concerned police, then the Management has to revisit the punishment related to those charges. However, it has not been considered by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Mr.Gladson Michael Rajadurai, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents and submits that the representation of this petitioner is under consideration and the same would be considered within a period of four weeks.
Operative part
Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.78 of 2026the respondents to consider and decide the the petitioner’s representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 05.01.2026NCC: Yes/NoIndex: Yes/NoInternet: YesvrnTo1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai Division, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai. 2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Dindigul Region, Bye-Pass Road, Dindigul.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.78 of 2026B.PUGALENDHI, J.vrnOrder made inW.P(MD)No. 78 of 2026 05.01.20265/5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 3/5
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 12(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.