Dismissed

M.Kandavel v. The General Manager

Madras HC7 Jan 2022WP/23600/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the dismissal award of a Transport Corporation driver found liable for a fatal accident due to rash and negligence, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held it cannot re-appreciate evidence and ruled the dismissal proportionate given the driver's prior similar offences.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari to recall the Labour Court record and quash the dismissal award is dismissed.

M.Kandavel Vs The General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.23600 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.27546 of 2018

M.Kandavel

... Petitioner

The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Cuddalore Region, Cuddalore-2.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records relating to the order passed in I.D.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore dated 20.12.2017 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muralidharan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.G.Saravana Kumar Standing Counsel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner herein, while employed as a Driver in the respondent Corporation, had caused a road accident on 30.08.2015, wherein two motor cyclists died. The Labour Court had found that there was rash and negligene on the part of the driver and accordingly rejected the Industrial Dispute raised by him. The present writ petition is against the dismissal award.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the evidence of the Management Witness No.1 and submitted that the accident occurred owing to the negligence of the motor cyclists and therefore the Labour Court was not correct in coming to the conclusion that, the negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus.

¶17

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation on the other hand would submit that, all the evidences have been considered by the Labour Court, based on which the rash and negligence on the part of the driver has been

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

established. He would further submit that, the petitioner herein was earlier dealt with for similar fatal accidents on two occasions and therefore sought for dismissal of the present writ petition.

¶20

It is a settled proposition of law that this Court,

¶21

exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not re-appreciate the evidences let in before the Labour Court while dealing with the Award passed therein. The present ground raised by the petitioner is one which indicates re-appreciation of evidence. Even otherwise, the Award of the Labour Court evidences that the decision of implicating rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was based on the accident report (Management Exhibit No.9) and the oral evidences let in. It is on this basis that the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle, while turning from the road into the hospital ought to have noticed the two wheeler and failure to notice the same amounts to rash and negligence. As such, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has come to the conclusion in the absence of any evidence. Moreover, this is the third occasion where the driver had indulged in fatal accidents and hence the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges.

¶22

For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

KST

¶28

¶29

1.The General Manager

¶30

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Cuddalore Region, Cuddalore-2.

¶31

2.The Presiding officer,

¶32

Labour Court, Cuddalore.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.G.Saravana Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.1548 +1cc to Mr.R.Muralidharan, Advocate, S.R.No.2152

¶34

W.P.No.23600 of 2018

¶35

BP(CO) SB(25/02/2022)

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Kandavel v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kandavel v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Raju Vs The Inspector of Police

C.Arunachalam Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

Tmt.C.Selvi, Age 30 Vs The Director of Government

S.Asaithambi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.Dhanabagyam Vs The General Manager

R.Ilakkiya Vs The Secretary to Government