Allowed¶40

The General Secretary, v. The Labour Court

Madras HC24 Oct 2025WP(MD)/17588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP.(MD)No.17588 of 2022; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Justice B.Pugalendhi; Nellai Chidambaranar Kmari Districts State Transport Employees Union v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Tirunelveli Region; driver disciplinary punishment; stoppage of increment three years with cumulative effect; accident 15.08.2014; acquittal in criminal case; MCOP.No.423 of 2014; I.D.No.23 of 2019; Labour Court Tirunelveli; Maharashtra SRTC v. Mahadeo Krishn Naik (2025) 4 SCC 321; approbate and reprobate; contradictory stands before MACT and Labour Court; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; award set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with no costs; the impugned order/award of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.23 of 2019 dated 30.12.2021 set aside. ¶40

The General Secretary, Vs The Labour Court — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP.(MD)No.17588 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.10.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP.(MD)No.17588 of 2022

¶7

The General Secretary Nellai, Chidambaranar, Kmari Districts State Transport Employees Union Reg.No.468/Tili, 4-C, Imperial Compound (Upstairs) Peratchi Amman Kovil Road Vannarpet, Tirunelveli.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli)Ltd., Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in relating to the impugned order passed in I.D.No.23 of 2019 dated 30.12.2021 and quash the

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

WP.(MD)No.17588 of 2022

¶17

same and consequently, direct the second respondent Corporation to give all service benefits and other consequential other attendant benefits as per law to the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guhan For R2 : Mr.D.Jebaraj

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner/Trade Union has preferred this writ petition

¶21

as against the award passed in I.D.No.23 of 2019 dated 30.12.2021.

¶22

2.The above said industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner/Trade Union as against the order of punishment imposed by the Management against a member of the Trade Union,who is working as Driver. On 15.08.2014, while he was on duty, one Bajaj Pulsar two wheeler dashed against the right side of the bus and caused some damages. Therefore, a criminal case was registered and disciplinary proceedings was also initiated by the

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

WP.(MD)No.17588 of 2022

¶26

Management as against the Driver. In conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed by the Management. As against the order of punishment, the petitioner/ Trade Union has raised the above said industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in ID.No.23 of 2019 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/Trade Union has preferred this writ petition.

¶27

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Trade Union submits that the criminal case, which was registered for the accident, was ended in acquittal and the second respondent / Management itself has taken a stand before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in MCOP.No.423 of 2014 that there was no fault on the part of the Driver. While so, order of punishment imposed by the Management as against the Driver is not proper and the Labour Court has also erroneously confirmed the same.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

WP.(MD)No.17588 of 2022

¶31

4.This issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble

¶32

Supreme Court in Mahrashtra SRTC Vs Mahadeo Krishn Naik reported in (2025) 4 SCC 321 as follows:

¶33

“ 30.The Corporation did not deliberately refer to

¶34

the award of MACT at two different tiers, and thereby actively6 suppressed relevant material from a court of law. We do not propose to enter the arena of controversy as to whether the award of MACT is biding the Labour Court. However, the Corporation could not have at any rate resiled form what it pleaded in its own written statement before MACT on a sworn affidavit and deliberately withhold the same. This court has always taken a serious view against suppression of evidence in a judicial proceedings.

¶35

32.Even if we keep the award of MACT aside, it is clear from the pleadings of the Corporation before the MACT and the Labourt Court that the Corporation has attempted to get the best of both worlds. The contradictory nature of the stances taken by the Corporation before the Labour Court and MACT reeks of the Corporation trying to approbate and reprobate on the same issue. It is bound to cause immense prejudice

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

WP.(MD)No.17588 of 2022

¶39

to Mahadeo if the Corporation is allowed to reverse its stance to suit its own interests.”

¶40

5.In this case also the second respondent/Management has taken a stand that the Driver was not responsible for the accident, before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in MCOP.No.423 of 2014 but, imposed a punishment for the alleged accident in the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Management cannot take two different stands. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.23 of 2019 dated 30.12.2021 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶41

24.10.2025

¶42

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns

¶43

¶44

The Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47