MANAGEMENT MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first Respondent/Labour Court in his proceedings in I.D. No. 64 of 1995 dated 28.10.2004 and quash the same.

(2.) The first Respondent/Labour Court while passing the impugned award in I.D. No. 64 of 1995, dated 28.10.2004, has among other things, observed that 'considering the entire pleadings and materials placed before this Court that the accident place has not been properly seen by the Respondent/Management immediately. The place of accident and the sudden crossing of the cyclist and the standing of the bullock card in front of the bus driven by the first Petitioner from north to south, revealed the background that the first Petitioner had no other way except to drive the bus on the extreme left and thereby the driver of the bus dashed against the tamarind tree. Hence, this Court is inclined to invoke Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to modify the punishment imposed by the Respondent/Management under Ex.M.15, etc and directed the Respondent/Management to grant all terminal benefits to the second Petitioner (the legal representative of the deceased first Petitioner) with back wages from 11.11.1994 to 18.06.1995 and set aside the order of termination dated 11.11.1994 passed by the Respondent/Management against the deceased first Petitioner and converted the dismissal order of the first Petitioner into one of simple discharge.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation/Management submits that the impugned award passed by the first Respondent/Labour Court dated 28.10.2004 in I.D. No. 64 of 1995 is arbitrary one and contrary to law. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Management that in a case of accident, the settled law is the principle of 'Res ipso loquitor' (the occurrence speaks for itself), will apply and therefore, the burden lies on the driver to prove that he has not been responsible for the accident.