Allowed¶42

The Management v. R.Jayaprakasam

Madras HC17 Mar 2025WP/26292/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC, 17.03.2025, M. Dhandapani J., W.P.No.26292 of 2015: writ allowed; order of Special Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) rejecting approval of dismissal of TNSTC (Kumbakonam) driver set aside; fatal rash and negligent bus driving on 28.09.2010 killing three; no independent/additional evidence needed where employee does not dispute culpability; causation apportionment left to claim petition/criminal court; applied guideline in Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemicals Works, AIR 1978 SC 1004; certiorari under Article 226; domestic enquiry; approval petition; transport corporation misconduct.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in A.P.No.261 of 2011 dated 18.04.2013 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed; no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ¶42

The Management Vs R.Jayaprakasam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent in A.P.No.261 of 2011 rejecting the approval of the dismissal of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The applicable test was whether the guideline framed by the Apex Court in Lalla Ram's case had been followed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The 1st respondent has not disputed that he was responsible for the death of the three persons or that he was behind the wheel on the day of the incident.

¶38

Key takeaways

The fact that the 1st respondent caused the death of three persons remains unrebutted.ratio¶38
The 2nd respondent grossly erred in expecting the petitioner to prove the misconduct of the 1st respondent through another source of evidence.ratio¶38
Whether the tricycle driver was responsible for, or had contributed to, the accident is not an issue to be decided before the domestic enquiry; it is a matter to be decided in the claim petition or before the criminal court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (M. Dhandapani, J.), W.P.No.26292 of 2015, decided 17.03.2025 - Allowed (certiorari under Article 226 of Constitution of India). The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., challenged the order dated 18.04.2013 of the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) in A.P.No.261 of 2011 rejecting approval of the dismissal of its driver (R. Jayaprakasam), who was alleged to have driven a bus rashly and negligently near Tharasuram Market on 28.09.2010, causing the deaths of three tricycle occupants; the dismissal followed a domestic enquiry in which the charges stood proved. The Court held that the authority 'grossly erred in expecting the petitioner to prove the misconduct of the 1st respondent through another source of evidence' when the driver's responsibility for the three deaths was undisputed and 'remains unrebutted'; whether the tricycle driver contributed to the accident was 'not a issue to be decided before domestic enquiry' but a matter for the claim petition or the criminal court. Testing the impugned order against the guideline framed by the Apex Court in Lalla Ram vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemicals Works Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1004, the Court found the decision 'contrary to Lalla Ram's case', set it aside, allowed the writ petition with no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

W.P.No.26292 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.26292 of 2015

and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

The Management,

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam Region, Kumbakonam, Represented by its General Manager. ... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.R.Jayaprakasam

¶13

2.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), DMS Compound, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records passed by the 2^nd respondent in A.P.No.261 of 2011 dated 18.04.2013 and to quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Rohini For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar for M/s.A.P.Sathyamurthi [R1] Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader [R2]

¶17

¶18

Page No.1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.26292 of 2015

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenging the rejection of the approval petition filed by the petitioner-Transport Corporation in A.P.No.261 of 2011 by the 2^nd respondent vide order dated 18.04.2013, the present writ petition is filed.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that the 1^st respondent was

¶24

working as a driver in the petitioner corporation. Whileso, on 28.09.2010, when the 1^st respondent was driving the bus towards Chidambaram, while nearing, Tharasuram Market, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a tricycle. The three persons who were in the said bicycle sustained grievous injuries and they succumbed to the injuries. The 1^st respondent was charge sheeted and not being satisfied with the explanation domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges stood proved. The petitioner issued second show cause notice and thereafter, dismissed the 1^st respondent. The petitioner filed an approval petition before the 2^nd respondent seeking to approve the dismissal of the 1^st respondent. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. Managment

¶25

of D.C.M. Chemicals Works Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004 ,

¶26

applied the five test enumerated in the said case. The 2^nd respondent held

¶27

Page No.2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.26292 of 2015

¶30

that the petitioner has not proved the guilt of the 1^st respondent by adducing proper evidence and therefore, rejected the approval petition. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st respondent was involved in a serious misconduct of causing death of three persons. The 2^nd respondent has given the misplaced sympathy and rejected the approval petition. According to the petitioner, principles of natural justice was followed and after giving due opportunity to the 1^st respondent to prove his innocence, the dismissal order was passed. Therefore, he submitted that the labour court had erred in rejecting the approval sought for. Hence, he prayed that this writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

¶32

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that the impugned order warrants no interference and the 2 nd respondent was justified in rejecting the approval petition on the ground that the petitioner management has not proved the charge against the 1 st respondent by making it a prima face case and adducing proper evidence. Therefore, he prayed for rejecting this writ petition.

¶33

Page No.3 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.26292 of 2015

¶36

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶37

6. The 1 st respondent is alleged to h ave driven the bus in a rash

¶38

and negligent manner and caused death of three persons. The facts speak for themselves. The 1^st respondent has not disputed that he was responsible for the death of the three persons or he was not behind the wheels on that fateful day. The 2^nd respondent has grossly erred in expecting the petitioner to prove the misconduct of the 1^st respondent through another source of evidence. The fact that the 1^st respondent has cause death of three persons remains unrebutted. The 2^nd respondent ought not to have rejected the approval in a case of this nature where three persons have lost their life. The question whether the tricycle driver was responsible or the accident or he had contributed for the accident is not a issue to be decided before domestic enquiry. It is a matter to be decided in claim petition or before the criminal court. The test here to be applied is whether the guideline framed by the Apex Court in the Lalla Ram's case is followed or not. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the approval petition Page No.4 of 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.26292 of 2015

¶41

decided by the 2^nd respondent is contrary to Lalla Ram's case. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the 2^nd respondent and allow this writ petition.

¶42

7. In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent in A.P.No.261 of 2011 dated 18.04.2013 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

17.03.2025 Index : Yes / No (2/3) Speaking order / Non-speaking order NCC:Yes/No sp

¶44

¶45