Dismissed

The Management v. The Secretary

Madras HC22 Oct 2025WP(MD)/9255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A transport corporation challenged a Labour Court award setting aside punishment imposed on a driver for a fatal accident. The court found the corporation had taken contradictory stands in the disciplinary proceedings and before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and dismissed the writ petition following Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioner Management; Labour Court award dated 05.04.2021 setting aside the punishment upheld.

The Management Vs The Secretary — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.6626 of 2022

¶7

The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Madurai Region, Bypass Road, Madurai.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The Secretary, State Transport Madurai Thozhilar Sangam, (Regn. No.157/MDU-Link CITU0, V.P.Chinthan Ninaivagam, V.O.C. 2^nd Street, Arul Nagar, Bypass Road, Madurai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

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 dated 05.04.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.26 of 2017 as illegal and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah

¶14

1/12

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.S.Arunachalam

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition as against the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.26 of 2017, dated 05.04.2021.

¶20

The Industrial Dispute was raised by the respondent Trade Union, challenging the order of punishment imposed by the Management against a Driver, one Vedharaj, who caused a fatal accident on 18.04.2013.

¶21

The Driver Vedharaj, who was on duty on 18.04.2013 in a bus bearing Reg.No.TN 58N 1712 from Periyar Bus Stand to Thiruppalai, dashed against a pedestrian and in the result, the pedestrian succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the Management has initiated a disciplinary proceedings as against the driver Vedharaj, by issuing a charge memo on 29.05.2013 and after conducting an enquiry, the Management has passed an order of punishment dated 27.05.2014, imposing stoppage of annual increment for a period of two

¶22

2/12

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶25

years with cumulative effect and ordered to treat the suspension period from

¶26

20.04.2013 to 19.05.2013 as leave on loss of pay. Challenging the same,

¶27

the respondent Union has raised the above Industrial Dispute. However, the Management has taken a different stand in the MACTOP claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Considering two different stand taken by the Management in the disciplinary proceedings and before the MACTOP Tribunal, the Labour Court, by award dated 05.04.2021, allowed the Industrial Dispute by setting aside the order of punishment dated 27.05.2014. Aggrieved by the award dated 05.04.2021, passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, the Management has preferred this writ petition.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management submits that the domestic enquiry was conducted by following due process of law and the workman was provided with sufficient opportunities, however, without considering the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings was conducted, the Labour Court has erroneously allowed the industrial dispute. According to him, the different stand taken by the Management shall not affect the conduct of the driver in committing a fatal accident. He further submits that the Full Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.

¶29

3/12

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶32

39563 of 2004, dated 01.04.2024, also approved the different stand taken by the Management in the domestic enquiry and also before the MACTOP Tribunal.

¶33

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶34

The Management of the Transport Corporation has passed an order of punishment dated 27.05.2014 against the Driver Vedharaj, imposing stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, for a fatal accident committed by him. However, on the very same incident, the petitioner/Transport Corporation has taken a different stand before the MACTOP Tribunal that it is due to negligence on the pedestrian, the accident had caused. When the Transport Corporation had taken two different stand in the disciplinary proceedings and before the MACTOP Tribunal, the Management is not justified in imposing the punishment as against the Driver.

¶35

A similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.16941 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 by following the Judgment of the

¶36

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahrashtra SRTC Vs Mahadeo Krishna Naik

¶37

4/12

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶40

reported in (2025) 4 SCC 321 as follows:

¶41

“23. The Latin phrases suggestio falsi and suppressio veri embody concepts of unethical conduct of a party having serious consequences in various fields including law.

¶42

According to Black's Law Dictionary, suggestio falsi is a false representation or a misleading suggestion while suppressio veri connotes suppression of the truth; an indirect lie, whether by words, conduct, or artifice. It is a type of fraud.

¶43

That the Corporation indulged in the misadventure of suggestio falsi and suppressio veri is incontrovertible.

¶44

Before the Labour Court, the Corporation did not leave any stone unturned to establish that not only was the inquiry conducted against Mahadeo fair, but the conclusion arrived at in the course of such inquiry that Mahadeo was guilty of misconduct in rashly and negligently driving the bus of the Corporation leading to loss suffered by it was established upon due consideration of the materials on record. Having regard to the clear and specific stand taken before MACT in its written statement, which has been quoted above, the Corporation did make a false representation before the Labour Court amounting to suggestio falsi . Also, having not disclosed before the Labour Court the outcome of the proceedings before MACT, a fortiori , that it had not been found liable to pay any compensation to the passengers who either died and were injured based on what the version in the

¶45

5/12

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶48

written statement was and the argument advanced on its behalf to absolve itself of any liability, the Corporation is also guilty of suppressio veri .

¶49

The conduct of the Corporation when Mahadeo was struggling to find a foothold before the Single Judge in view of the contours of judicial scrutiny of awards of industrial adjudicators cannot also escape notice. Perhaps, the Corporation thought that the proceedings before MACT not having been brought to the notice of the Labour Court by Mahadeo previously, he was blissfully ignorant of the same and, therefore, the Corporation would steal a march over him by not making the appropriate disclosure. The Corporation was caught off-guard when Mahadeo produced in the written statement and the award of MACT before the Single Judge in his review petition.

¶50

The relevance of MACT judgment and its probative value to the case at hand cannot be gainsaid. To be relevant, a piece of evidence relied on by a party must be shown to have some logical connection to the case and its admission would be necessary to prove or disprove a fact. Once the evidence is found to be relevant and is admitted arises the question of its probative value. Probative value, as is well known, refers to the weight or persuasive power of the evidence. It is not always necessary that a piece of evidence found relevant to a case would still demand significant probative value. An assessment has to be made by the court

¶51

6/12

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶54

as to how convincing or persuasive the evidence is and how effective it would be to prove or disprove a fact.

¶55

We are conscious that the law of evidence per se does not apply to industrial adjudication. Nevertheless, the general principles do apply. In any event, in industrial adjudication, principles of natural justice have to be complied with. Fairness in procedure has developed as the third limb of natural justice. The manner in which the Corporation conducted itself before the Labour Court does not behove a creature of a statute. It has been far from fair in its dealings with Mahadeo.

¶56

The Corporation did not deliberately refer to the award of MACT at two different tiers and thereby actively 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 binding on the Labour Court. However, the Corporation could not have at any rate resiled from 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.

¶57

In State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan , a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC p.706, para 164)

¶58

“164. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the court or in

¶59

7/12

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶62

the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course of justice 'undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity'.”

¶63

Even if we keep the award of MACT aside, it is clear from the pleadings of the Corporation before MACT and the Labour 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 to Mahadeo if the Corporation is allowed to reverse its stance to suit its own interests.

¶64

This Court in Union of India v. N.Murugesan while holding that it will be inequitable and unfair if a party is allowed to challenge a position while enjoying its fruits, ruled: (SCC pp.38-39, para 26)

¶65

8/12

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶68

“26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits. One cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle.” (emphasis supplied)

¶69

The Corporation, without an iota of doubt, being in the dominant position has attempted and achieved success in stealing a march over Mahadeo by indulging in suggestio falsi and suppressio veri . The actions of the Corporation have

¶70

9/12

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶73

resulted in Mahadeo being robbed of a stable livelihood and has caused irreparable harm to him. It would not behove any court, much less this Court, to allow such free reign to a party. Omission, neglect and/or failure – whatever be the cause – the Corporation's non-disclosure of what its stand was before MACT and what was ultimately held by MACT to the Labour Court as well as the Single Judge is suppression of such high magnitude that it can safely be held to be akin to a clear fraud on court.”

¶74

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.

¶75

22.10.2025

¶76

NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ogy

¶77

10/12

¶78

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

¶79

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶80

¶81

The Labour Court, Madurai.

¶82

The Secretary, State Transport Madurai Thozhilar Sangam, (Regn. No.157/MDU-Link CITU0, V.P.Chinthan Ninaivagam, V.O.C. 2^nd Street, Arul Nagar, Bypass Road, Madurai.

¶83

11/12

¶84

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

¶85

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶86

B.PUGALENDHI,J.

¶87

ogy

¶88

W.P.(MD)No.9255 of 2022

¶89

22.10.2025

¶90

12/12

¶91

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

The Management v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivakasi Municipal Corporation Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Mohamed Eakieem Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner /

M/s. Aluminium Powder Co. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Director

Gnanasekaran .G Vs The Managing Director

The Management Vs Subbaian v

The Management Vs General Secretary