Dismissed

The Executive Engineer v. The Regional Secretary

Madras HC20 Nov 2025WP(MD)/13784/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TANGEDCO challenged a Labour Court award setting aside punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on a Line Inspector whose work with a Foreman coincided with an electrocution death. The High Court found no proper violation of the Standing Orders and declined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Labour Court award setting aside the punishment and directing grant of withheld increments stands confirmed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Executive Engineer Vs The Regional Secretary — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 20.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.13784 of 2022 and

¶7

WMP(MD)Nos.9783 and 9785 of 2022

¶8

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Distribution Circle, Madurai East Division, Thirupalai, Madurai. ... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The Regional Secretary, Tamilnadu Electricity Board Auditor, Field Employees Association, Madurai Regional Electricity Office Complex, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7. ... Respondent

¶11

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 relating to the impugned order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.102 of 2015 dated 18.09.2019.

¶12

1/10

¶13

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

¶14

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramanathan For Respondent : Mr.R.Thangasamy

¶16

ORDER

¶17

TANGEDCO has preferred this writ petition as against the award passed by the Labour Court, in I.D.No.102 of 2015 dated 18.09.2019.

¶18

The Industrial Dispute was raised by the respondent Union challenging the order of punishment imposed against one R.Sakthivel. The said Sakthivel was working as Line Inspector in the petitioner TANGEDCO on 04.08.2007 and he was allotted with service extension work at Saruguvalayapatti. However, the said Line Inspector Sakthivel, without complying the said work on 04.08.2007, accompanied one Andi, the Foreman and did some repair work at Nadupatti. During this work, they have negligently connected the wires to earth in order to execute Nadupatti work. However, this caused electrocution death of one Rajendran, a Mazdoor who was doing another work at L.T.Feeder, Sathamangalam. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was contemplated as against the Line Inspector R.Sakthivel. Based on the enquiry report, he

¶19

2/10

¶20

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

¶21

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶22

was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

¶23

2.1. Aggrieved over the same, the Union has raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, which ended in failure. Thereafter, the industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Court in I.D.No.102 of 2018. The Labour Court, by its order dated 18.09.2019, allowed the industrial dispute in favour of the respondent Union by setting aside the order of punishment and directed the Board to grant increments to the Line Inspector R.Sakthivel, which have been withheld and to disburse the benefits.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Line Inspector R.Sakthivel was allotted a work at Saruguvalayapatti. However, without following the directions of the higher officer, the said Sakthivel had executed certain work at Nadupatti which has been assigned to the Foreman Andi. Therefore, according to them, he has violated the orders of the higher officials and the same is liable to be punished. He further submitted that the said Line Inspector and the

¶25

3/10

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶28

Foreman have executed the work in a negligent manner which resulted in electrocution death of one Rajendran, who was on duty at L.T.Feeder, Sathamangalam and climbed into electric pillar around 12 noon and died due to electric shock. This death was due to the negligence on the part of the Line Inspector and the Foreman. Therefore, the charges have been framed against them for violation of Standing Order Nos.30(i), 30(xi) and 30(xxx) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and they were imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the same, both the employees have preferred appeals and revisions and the same were dismissed. Thereafter, the Union has raised the industrial dispute only for the Line Inspector Sakthivel. The Labour Court, without considering the same, allowed the industrial dispute and set aside the order of punishment.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent Union submitted that one Andi was working as Foreman at the relevant point of time and he was superior to the Line Inspector Sakthivel. The said Andi directed the Line Inspector Sakthivel to assist him to execute a major work at Nadupatti. Therefore, on the direction of the said Andi, the Line Inspector Sakthivel

¶30

4/10

¶31

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

¶32

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶33

accompanied him to execute the major work. This is in addition to the work which has been allotted to him at Saruguvalayapatti. It is not the case of the Electricity Board that the Line Inspector has not executed the work which has been assigned to him. In fact, they have combined four wires with another wire and also connected it to earth in order to safely execute the work, however, it has resulted in electrocution of death of one Rajendran, a Mazoor, who was doing another work at L.T.Feeder, Sathamangalm and climbed into the electric pillar. This is purely an accident and they were not aware of it. Therefore, the Standing Orders would not make out any offence as against the Line Inspector Sakthivel, who accompanied the Foreman Andi, who was entrusted with the major work at Nadupatti. The learned counsel further submitted that the Electricity Board has not placed any materials including the enquiry report before the Labour Court.

¶34

This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused

¶35

the materials placed on record.

¶36

5/10

¶37

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

¶38

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶39

The Line Inspector R.Sakthivel was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect and the same was set aside by the Labour Court, by order impugned in this writ petition.

¶40

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner/the Executive Officer of the Electricity Board would be relevant in this case and the same is extracted as under:

¶41

“4. As per the allotment order dated 04.08.2007, Thiru.R.Sakthivel, Line Inspector was allotted with Saruguvalayapatti service extension work at about 8.00 a.m. and the work involved was that to correct the wires which were hanging down in Nadupatti was allotted to superior staff Mr.Andi and that work was immediately correct by the staffs for the welfare of the public.

¶42

Thiru.Andi had directed the Mr.R.Sakthivel, Line Inspector to first attend the Nadupatti work along with him and then to attend the Saruguvalayapatti service extension work. Before starting the said work Thiru.R.Sakthivel and Thiru.Andi stop the alternator, combined four wire with another wire and connected it to earth. During the relevant point of time, Thiru.Rajendran, Mazdoor who had done another work at L.T.Feeder,

¶43

6/10

¶44

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

¶45

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶46

Sathamangalm, climbed into the Electric Pillar shockingly died at 12.00 noon due to electric shock.”

¶47

From the above, it appears that the Line Inspector was allotted with Saruguvalayapatti service extension work on 04.08.2007. One Andi, Foreman, was allotted with a work at Nadupatti. The work at Nadupatti was a major work, where the wires were hanging down. Therefore, the said Andi requested the Line Inspector Sakthivel to assist him to execute the work at Nadupatti. According to the Board, extending the assistance to the Foreman on his direction itself would amount to dereliction of duty and non-compliance of the orders of the higher officials. Therefore, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated as against the Line Inspector Sakthivel for violation of the Standing Orders Nos. 30(i), 30(xi) and 30(xxx) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

¶48

Standing Orders Nos.30(i), 30(xi) and 30(xxx) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are extracted as under:

¶49

(i) xUth; jhdhfnth (my;yJ) kw;bwhUtUlndh (my;yJ) kw;Wk; gyUld; Tl;lhfr; nrh;e;njh nky; mYtyuJ rl;l

¶50

7/10

¶51

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

¶52

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶53

tpjpfSf;Fl;lgl;l epahakhd Mizf;F ntz;Lbkd;w fl;Lg;glhky; ,Uj;jy; (my;yJ) fPH;g;goahky; ,Uj;jy;/

¶54

(xi) xG';fpd;ikahf ,Ug;gijna tHf;fkhff; bfhz;oUj;jy;/

¶55

(xxx) ghJfhg;ig Kd;dpl;L tpLf;fg;gl;l ve;j xU cj;jput[f;F (my;yJ) cUthf;fg;gl;l tpjpf;F ntz;Lnkd;nw fPH;goahky; ,Uj;jy; (my;yJ) ve;j xU ghJfhg;g[ Vw;ghl;ila[k; (my;yJ) Fwf;fply; (my;yJ) ghJfhg;g[f;bfd mikf;fg;gl;Ls;s fUtpia ntz;Lbkd;nw mfw;Wjy;/

¶56

From the available materials placed on record, it appears that the Line Inspector Sakthivel was allotted with a work on 04.08.2007. However, he has executed the work at Nadupatti on the direction of the Foreman Andi. They have simply connected four wires with another wire and connected it to earth in order to avoid any accident. However, it has resulted in a death of another employee who was doing another work at L.T.Feeder, Sathyamangalam. There was no nexus between Sathamangalam and Nadupatti. It is not clear whether the execution of work by another employee was known to the employees at Nadupatti,

¶57

8/10

¶58

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

¶59

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶60

who were doing the work to connect the wires, which were hanging down at Naduvapatti. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed as against the Line Inspector, for violation of the Standing Orders Nos.30(i), 30(xi) and 30(xxx), is not proper.

¶61

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶62

20.11.2025 ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No. To The Regional Secretary, Tamilnadu Electricity Board Auditor, Field Employees Association, Madurai Regional Electricity Office Complex, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.

¶63

9/10

¶64

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

¶65

WP(MD). No.13784 of 2022

¶66

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶67

ogy

¶68

WP(MD) No.13784 of 2022

¶69

20.11.2025

¶70

10/10

¶71

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

The Executive Engineer v. The Regional Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. The Regional Secretary

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

The Management Vs General Secretary

The Management of Vs The Special Joint Commissioner for Labour

The Chief Operating Officer Vs Andivel L

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii Vs M/s. Madhangi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

The Management Vs Murugan.K

The Management Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour