The Management Vs General Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Management Vs General Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner - the writ petition seeking to quash the Labour Court award was dismissed with no costs, leaving the award dated 06.09.2021 undisturbed; the connected miscellaneous petition (WMP.(MD)Nos.6066 of 2022) was closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Labour Court, Madurai award dated 06.09.2021 in ID.No.36 of 2017 (which allowed the dispute over the punishment imposed on Driver A.Murugan) should be allowed or dismissed. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2025) 4 SCC 321, there is no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Ratio / Principle

In this case also, the petitioner-Management took a stand before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal that the passenger died due to his own carelessness and that the Driver was not responsible for the accident, yet imposed a punishment for the alleged accident in the disciplinary proceedings - the same contradictory/approbate-reprobate posture highlighted in the cited Supreme Court decision.

Key takeaways

Final disposition: this writ petition is dismissed, no costs are awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single-member bench (B.Pugalendhi, J.), WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022 & connected WMP.(MD)Nos.6066 of 2022, decided 30.10.2025. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Virudhunagar Region filed a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Labour Court, Madurai award dated 06.09.2021 in ID.No.36 of 2017, whereby the respondent Union (General Secretary, Arasu Pokkuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam, CITU) had successfully disputed the punishment - stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect - imposed on its member, Driver A.Murugan, following a 21.04.2014 incident on bus Regn. No.475 (Sathur-Pandhalkudi route) in which a passenger trying to curb falling luggage near the front steps fell down and died. In MCOP.No.575 of 2015 before the IV Additional District Court, Madurai, the Corporation had claimed the passenger died of his own carelessness and the Driver was not responsible, yet punished the same Driver for the alleged accident in disciplinary proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court decision cited as Mahrashtra SRTC Vs Mahadeo Krishn Naik, (2025) 4 SCC 321 (spelled as in the judgment) - condemning such contradictory, approbate-and-reprobate stances - the court found no reason to interfere with the award and dismissed the writ petition with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 30.10.2025

CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022 and WMP.(MD)Nos.6066 of 2022

The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Virudhunagar Region, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar. ... Petitioner

Vs.

General Secretary, Arasu Pokkuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam, Virudhunagar CITU V.P.ChithanNinaivagam, 6/662, Lakshmi Nagar, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar. ... Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for

1/6

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

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022

the records relating to the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in ID.No.36 of 2017 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Senthil Kumariah

For Respondent : Mr.S.Arunachalam

ORDER

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation, Virudhunagar Region, has filed this writ petition as against the award dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in the dispute raised by the respondent/Trade Union in ID.No.36 of 2017.

2.The above said industrial dispute was raised by the respondent/Trade Union as against the order of punishment imposed by the Management against its member one A.Murugan,

2/6

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

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022

who is working as a Driver in the petitioner/ Management. The petitioner/Management has imposed the punishment by issuing a charge memo that this Driver, who was on duty, on 21.04.2014, in a bus bearing registration No.475 plying from Sathur to Pandhalkudi, has failed to warn a passenger, who has tired to curb the falling luggage near the front steps of the bus and he fell down and died. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed claim petition before the IV Additional District Court, Madurai in MCOP.No.575 of 2015, wherein the Transport Corporation has taken a stand that the passenger died due to his carelessness at the time of accident and they have also taken a stand that the Driver was not responsible for the alleged accident. However, they have initiated disciplinary proceedings as against the Driver and in conclusion they have imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. As against the order of punishment the respondent, on behalf of the Driver, has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and it has been allowed by award dated 06.09.2021. Challenging

3/6

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

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022

the same, the Management of the Transport Corporation has filed the present writ petition.

3.This issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahrashtra SRTC Vs Mahadeo Krishn Naik reported in (2025) 4 SCC 321 as follows:

“ 30.The Corporation did not deliberately refer to 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.

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

4/6

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

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022

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

4.In this case also the petitioner management has taken a stand before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal that the passenger died due to his carelessness and the Driver was not responsible for the accident, but imposed a punishment for the alleged accident in the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no reason to interfere with the award of the labour court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.10.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No gns To

The Labour Court, Madurai

5/6

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

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022

B.PUGALENDHI,J

gns

WP.(MD)Nos.8139 of 2022

30.10.2025

6/6

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