Dismissed¶46

The Management of v. General Secretary

Madras HC16 Jul 2026WP(MD)/12913/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023; W.M.P.(MD).No.10938 of 2023; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; M. Dhandapani J.; Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Kazhagam (Madurai) Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Pokkuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam; Conductor negligence; passenger death boarding moving bus; Mattuthavani Bus Stand; domestic enquiry finding of guilt unsustainable for want of evidence; stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect; Labour Court Madurai I.D.No.78 of 2017 award upheld; Article 226 writ court not appellate authority over Labour Court findings; perversity/unsupported evidence/patent illegality test; writ dismissed 16.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed, leaving the Labour Court award dated 11.11.2021 intact. ¶46

The Management of Vs General Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed, leaving the Labour Court award dated 11.11.2021 intact.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether there was any negligence on the part of the Conductor warranting the punishment imposed by the petitioner Corporation. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

No independent witness was examined in the domestic enquiry to establish that the workman noticed the passenger attempting to board the moving bus and failed to prevent it, and there is no material showing the accident occurred solely on account of any omission or commission attributable to the Conductor; in the absence of acceptable evidence establishing negligence, the finding of guilt recorded in the domestic enquiry cannot be sustained. The Court also observed that where a passenger attempts to board a moving bus through the front entrance, the Driver, having the benefit of rear-view mirrors, would also be positioned to notice and act.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the Labour Court; interference is warranted only where the findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or suffering from patent illegality.

¶42

Key takeaways

In the present case the Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in the Labour Court's award; the Labour Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, reached the factual conclusion that the charge against the workman was not proved, assigned cogent reasons for setting aside the punishment, and its award does not call for interference.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single bench of M. Dhandapani, J. (order dated 16.07.2026), dismissed W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023, a certiorari challenge under Article 226 to the Labour Court, Madurai award in I.D.No.78 of 2017 (dated 11.11.2021) which had set aside the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect (order dated 25.01.2014) imposed on Conductor Saravanan of Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Kazhagam (Madurai) Ltd after a passenger died attempting to board his moving bus at Mattuthavani Bus Stand. The Court held that no independent witness in the domestic enquiry established that the Conductor noticed the passenger boarding the moving bus, no material showed the accident was solely attributable to him, and in the absence of acceptable evidence of negligence the enquiry finding of guilt could not stand; noting that a Driver with rear-view mirrors is also placed to notice front-entrance boarding, and that a writ court does not sit as an appellate authority over Labour Court findings unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence or patently illegal, it found no perversity or infirmity in the award. Writ dismissed without costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD).No.10938 of 2023

¶7

The Management, Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Kazhagam (Madurai) Limited, Madurai Region, Bypass Road, Madurai.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The General Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pokkuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam, V.P.Chinthan Ninaivagam, VOC II Street, Arul Nagar, By-Pass Road, Madurai-625 016.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai pertaining to its proceedings in I.D.No.78 of 2017 dated 11.11.2021 and quash the same.

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondent : Mr.S.Arunacahalam

¶16

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D. No.78 of 2017, dated 11.11.2021.

¶19

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the workman, namely, Saravanan, was appointed as a Conductor on 21.01.2013 in the petitioner Management. While he was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-1291, an unfortunate incident occurred at the Mattuthavani Bus Stand. It is submitted that after the bus had started moving, a male passenger attempted to board the moving bus, lost his balance and fell on the rear side of the bus, thereby sustaining injuries and subsequently, he died. Pursuant to the said incident, a charge memo was issued to the workman alleging that he had failed to

¶21

take adequate precautionary steps to prevent the passenger from boarding the moving bus and had failed to safeguard the passenger. A domestic enquiry was

¶22

2/8

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023

¶25

conducted and, based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner Corporation imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect by order dated 25.01.2014.

¶26

4. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the respondent Union espousing the cause of the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D. No.78 of 2017. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court, by the impugned award dated 11.11.2021, set aside the punishment imposed on the workman. Challenging the said award, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶27

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that it is the bounden duty of a Conductor to ensure the safety of passengers travelling in the bus. It is also his responsibility to watch passengers while they board and alight from the bus and to take necessary precautionary measures to avoid accidents. According to the petitioner, the workman negligently permitted the passenger to board the moving bus, which resulted in the accident. Consequently, the legal heirs of the deceased passenger filed a claim petition and the petitioner Corporation suffered a financial loss of Rs.17,61,370/- towards

¶28

3/8

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023

¶31

compensation. It is therefore contended that the punishment imposed was only a minor one, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct, and that the Labour Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, erroneously interfered with the punishment. It is further submitted that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse and warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union would submit that the primary duty of a Conductor is to issue tickets to passengers inside the bus and, therefore, it is not practically possible for him to continuously watch passengers outside the bus. It is submitted that the Conductor, who was inside the bus attending to his duties, could not have noticed the passenger attempting to board the moving bus. On the other hand, if any person was in a position to notice such an incident, it was the Driver, who had the benefit of viewing the front entrance through the rear-view mirrors. He would further contend that there is absolutely no evidence to establish negligence on the part of the Conductor. The findings recorded in the domestic enquiry are not supported by any acceptable evidence. In the absence of any material to prove

¶33

4/8

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023

¶36

misconduct, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is unsustainable. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, rightly held that the finding of guilt was unsupported by evidence and consequently set aside the punishment.

¶37

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

8. The fact that the passenger sustained injuries and subsequently, he died while attempting to board the bus is not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there was any negligence on the part of the Conductor warranting the punishment imposed by the petitioner Corporation. A Conductor is undoubtedly expected to ensure the safety of passengers and to take reasonable precautions while passengers board and alight from the bus. At the same time, the nature of duties entrusted to a Conductor, namely issuing tickets and attending to passengers inside the bus, cannot be lost sight of. In cases where a passenger attempts to board a moving bus through the front entrance, the Driver, who has the benefit of rear-view mirrors, would also be in a position to

¶39

5/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023

¶42

notice such an act and take appropriate steps. A perusal of the records reveals that no independent witness was examined in the domestic enquiry to establish that the workman had noticed the passenger attempting to board the moving bus and had failed to prevent the same. There is also no material to show that the accident occurred solely on account of any omission or commission attributable to the Conductor. In the absence of acceptable evidence establishing negligence, the finding of guilt recorded in the domestic enquiry cannot be sustained. The Labour Court, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a factual conclusion that the charge against the workman had not been proved. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the Labour Court. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or suffering from patent illegality, interference is not warranted. In the present case, this Court does not find any perversity or legal infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has assigned cogent reasons for setting aside the punishment and the same do not call for interference.

¶43

6/8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P(MD)No.12913 of 2023

¶46

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶47

16.07.2026

¶48

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TSG