The petitioner challenged the Labour Court award quashing a reduction in basic pay. The Court found the award justified as the enquiry officer correctly noted witness testimony indicated technical fault rather than employee negligence, and the punishment was excessive.
No costs. The writ petition challenging the Labour Court award is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.3336 of 2014
The Management
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri Division
Rep. by its General Manager ...Petitioner
-vs-
Salem, Dharmapuri, Erode, Namakkal District Transport and General Labour Union No.21, J1, Vivegananthan Street,
Salem – 07. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in proceeding pursuant to the order passed in Industrial Dispute I.D.No.11/2007 dated 04.10.2012, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Raghu For R2 : No Appearance
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Award dated 04.10.2012 in I.D.No.11 of 2007, passed by the 1st Respondent, in and by which, the imposition of punishment of reduction in basic pay to lowest scale of pay for five years by the Management on 02.02.2005 was set aside.
Management is that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Employee, the accident had taken and that Corporation was financially affected. A detailed domestic enquiry was conducted after affording an opportunity on 30.05.2003, 28.06.2003, 23.07.2003, 18.08.2003, 17.09.2003, 24.11.2003, 10.12.2003 and 27.12.2003 and witness have been duly examined in his presence and the Employee also cross examined the witness. It is further case of the Management that based on the final report, the Employee was asked to offer his explanation and thereafter, was imposed with the punishment as afore-stated.
“10....vy;yhtw;wpw;Fk; nkyhf FLk;g tprhuizapd; bghGJ eph;thf jug;gpy; rhl;rpak; mspj;j eprh/1 jdJ Fwf;F tprhuiz rkak; ghykhdJ xU ngUe;J bry;yf;Toa FWfyhd ghij vd;W brhd;dhy; cz;ik jhd; vd;Wk; ghyj;jpw;F 2 fpkP Juj;jpy; rhiyahdJ nrjkile;Js;sJ vd;W jd;dhy; g [fhhpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W brhd;dhy; cz;ik jhd; vd;Wk; xg;g [f;bfhz;L rhl;rpakspj;Js;shh;/ Mf mj;jifa ntisapy; bjhHpyhspahy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s tpsf;ft[iuapy; cs;s r';fjpfspd;go tpgj;J Vw;gl epiwa tha;g;g[ cs;sJ/ Mf bjhHpyhsp kPJ rhl;lg;gl;l Fw;wj;ij epU:gzk; bra;a kpf kpf Kf;fpakhd Mtzk; nkhl;lhh; thfd Ma;thsh; mwpf;if kw;Wk; ngUe;jpy; rk;gtk; rkak; gazk; bra;j gazpfspd; rhl;rpak; Mfk; mit ,uz;Lk; ,y;yhj ntisapy; bjhHpyhspia Fw;wthsp vd tprhuiz mjpfhhp Kot[ bra;ag;gl;lJ ve;j mog;gilapy; uj;J bra;ajf;fjhFk;/
11/ thjj;jpw;fhf murhizapy; Twg;gl;Ls;s bjhHpyhsp Fw;wnk g[hpe;Js;shh; vd itj;Jf;bfhz;lhy; Tl mjw;F ntz;oa 5 Mz;L rk;gsk; Cjpa cah;tpd;wp tH';f cj;jutplg;gl;lJ vd;gJ kDjhuh; bra;j Fw;wj;jpw;F ,izahj jz;lidahf fUjpl ,ayhJ Mf me;jtifapy; eph;thfk; kpf fLikahd jz;lidia bjhHpyhspf;F tH';fpa[s;sJ vdnt ,j;bjhHpy; jhthitg; bghWj;jtiu bjhHpyhsp kPJ rhl;lg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wk; FLk;g tprhuizapd; bghGJ Kiwg;ggo epU:gzk; bra;atpy;iy vd , e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJtjhYk; bjhHpyhspf;F mspf;fg;gl;l jz;lid mth; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wj;jpw;F ,izahd jz;lid my;y vd;gjhYk; kDjhuh; chpik ciuapy; nfl;Ls;s jz;lid Fiwg;g[ mtUf;F fpilf;fj;jf;fnj MFk;/
,Wjpahf murhizapy; Twg;gl;Ls;s 22/02/2005k; njjpapl;l vk;kzpad; vd;w Xl;Ldhpd; Muk;g epiy mog;gil rk;gsj;ij 5 Mz;LfSf;F rk;gs Cjpa cah;tpd;wp tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l eph;thfj;jpd;
cj;jut[ uj;J bra;a ntz;Lk; vd nfhUk; bjhHpw;r';fj;jpd; nfhhpf;if epahakhdJ vd bjhHpw;r';fj;jpw;F Mjuthf tpil fhzg;gLfpwJ/
9/ ,e;epiyapy; eph;thf jug;gpy; tprhuiz mwptpg;g[fs; eprh/M6. eprh/M7. eprh/8. EprhM10 eprhM12 eprhM13 eprhM14 eprhM15 kw;Wk; eprhM16 Mf jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd/ nkw;brhd;d Mtz';fspd;go gy Kiw FLk;g tprhuiz xj;jp itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w tptuk; bjhpatUfpwJ/ gpd;dpl;L eph;thf jug;gpy; eprh/M17 Mf tprhuiz mwpf;if FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;brhd;d mwpf;ifia ghh;itapLk; nghJ FLk;g tprhuiz rkak; eph;thf jug;gpy; eprh/1 jkpHurd; vd;w egUk;. gpiHahsp jug;gpy; murhizapy; Twg;gl;Ls;s bjhHpyhspa[k; rhl;rpakspj;Js;shh;/ mjd; mog;gilapnyna tprhuiz mjpfhhp jdJ mwpf;fifahd tprhuiz Kot[ mwpf;ifia rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh;/ FLk;g tprhuiz Kotpy; bjhHpyhsp Fw;wk; g[hpe;jhh; vd tprhuiz mjpfhhp Kot[ bra;Js;shh;/ nkw;brhd;d Kot[ rhpahdjh vd ghh;itapLk; nghJ Muk;g epiyapnyna ,ae;jpu nfhshW fhuzkhf jhd; tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ vd bjhHpyhsp TwpapUf;fpd;w ntisapy; ,ae;jpu nfhshW fhuzkhf tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ vd epU:gpf;f ntz;oa bghWg;g[ bfhz;l eph;thfk; nkhl;lhh; thfd Ma;thsh; jahhpf;fg;gl;l mwpf;ifia Mtzkhf jhf;fy; bra;J jdJ jug;ig epiyepWj;jp ,Uf;fyhk;/ Mdhy; eph;thf jug;gpy; nkw;brhd;d Mtzj;ij jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ eph;thf jug;gpy; ep/rh/M3 Md cjtp bghwpahsh; rkh;gpj;j Mtzkhd tiuglj;ij ghh;f;Fk; nghJ tpgj;J ele;j ,lj;jpy; nuhL FWfyhf cs;sJ vd bjhpa tUfpwJ/ nkYk; ngUe;J nkl;oypUe;J jhH;thd gFjpia nehf;fp brd;w nghJ tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ vd;W ep/rh/M/1 kw;Wk; ep/rh/M2y; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mj;jifa ntisapy; bjhHpyhsp tpsf;ft[iuapy; Twpa[s;s gl;il ciltJ nghd;w epfH;t[fs; Vw;gLjw;F tha;g;g[ cz;L mt;thW xU epfH;t[ Vw;gl;L bjhHpyhsp TWtJ nghy; tpgj;J Vw;gl;L ,Uf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; tpgj;jpw;F bjhHpyhspia bghWg;ghf ,ayhJ/”
justified and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dpq
To:
The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem.
+1cc to M/s.D.Raghu, TNSTC Salem, Advocate, S.R.No.36405
W.P.No.3336 of 2014
RP(CO) RGA(24/11/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award setting aside the reduction in pay imposed on an employee for driving negligence.
Whether the punishment of reduction in basic pay for five years was excessive when the enquiry officer failed to disprove technical fault in the bus.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem
The General Secretary, Salem, Dharmapuri, Erode, Namakkal District Transport and General Labour Union No.21
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
