ANTHONY PICHAI A Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by G.O.(D) No. 75, Labour and Employment Department, dated February 1, 1993 refusing to make a reference for adjudication by the Government, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D) No.75, Labour and Employment Department, dated February 1, 1993 and letter No. 14435/181/93-4, dated February 2, 1994, quash the same and direct the first respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication.

(2.) In brief, the petitioner, a driver, working in the second respondent Corporation, was charged for his negligence for causing an accident on August 11, 1989, when he was on duty in Bus No. 7989 plying between Tirunelveli and Madurai route, near Thulukkapatti, by dashing against a boy, who sustained head injuries, with reference to which, themanagementissuedachargememo, framed charges, called for explanation and not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, held a domestic enquiry, found the petitioner guilty of the charges and consequently, awarded a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect to the petitioner, which necessitates the petitioner to approach the Government to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication, whereby the Government by G. O. (D) No. 75, Labour and Employment Department, dated February 1, 1993, which is impugned in the above writ petition, refused to make reference on the ground that the domestic enquiry was fairly and properly conducted and the punishment was awarded and hence, the claim of the petitioner, challenging the punishment, is frivolous.

(3.) In this connection, I am obliged to refer the decision in Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Commissioner and Secretary, Labour Department and others, 1988-I-LLJ-177 (Mad-DB). While interpreting Sections 2-A, 10(1), 11-A and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Court has laid down the power of the Government under Section 10 to refuse to make reference of dispute for adjudication, indicating the exceptions as follows at p. 195: "On an analysis of the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the other cases, the following principles emerged:-