Dismissed¶4

The Management of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Dvn. I) Ltd, v. Senthilkumar

Madras HC28 Apr 2026WA/1016/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Coimbatore DVN. I) Ltd v. Senthilkumar; WA No. 1016 of 2026; writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent; Section 11A Industrial Disputes Act reappraisal of evidence by Labour Court; charge memo arising from road accident of cyclist causing death of 12-year-old child; driver's explanation earlier accepted by management as plausible; W.P.No.38996 of 2024 order dated 02.01.2025 upheld; writ appeal dismissed, no costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed; award to be implemented within three months; bench S.M. Subramaniam J. and K. Surender J.; decided 28-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the Writ Court's order dismissing the writ petition, and therefore declines to interfere with it. ¶4

The Management of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Dvn. I) Ltd, Vs Senthilkumar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:MHC:1719

¶2

WA No. 1016 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 28-04-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶9

WA No. 1016 of 2026

¶10

The Management of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Coimbatore DVN. I) Ltd, No.37, Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore-641 043.

..Appellant(s)

Senthilkumar

..Respondent(s)

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the Order passed by this Court made in W.P.No.38996 of 2024 dated 02.01.2025 and allow this Writ Appeal.

¶16

For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondent(s): Ms.G.K.Dharshini

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶19

The present intra-court appeal has been instituted challenging the order

¶20

dated 02.01.2025 in W.P.No.38996 of 2024.

¶21

Charge memo was issued to the respondent/workmen due to a road

¶22

accident of a cyclist, which resulted in death of a 12-year-old child. Labour

¶23

Court considered the documents and evidence, and found that the directions

¶24

of the cyclist as well as the bus, whether they came from east to west or west

¶25

to east are altered and changed. Thus, the Labour Court questioned the

¶26

Page1 of 3

¶27

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

¶28

WA No. 1016 of 2026

¶29

veracity of the charges framed against the respondent/workmen. Since suspicious circumstances were found by the Labour Court, evidence produced by the appellant/ management was reappraised by the Labour Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, Labour Court found that the charge itself was incorrect, and more specifically, appellant management on an earlier occasion accepted the explanation given by the respondent/driver. The management also accepted that the explanation was plausible. The Labour Court found that the explanation was plausible and the management's version was incorrect.

¶30

The Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of

¶31

the Labour Court will be implemented within a period of three months.

¶32

This being the factum, the Writ Court considered the findings of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity warranting interference of the writ court order. Accordingly, the wit appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶33

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 28-04-2026

¶34

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶35

¶36

__________ Page2 of 3

¶37

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

¶38

WA No. 1016 of 2026

¶39