PATTUKOTTAI ALAGIRI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AND Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, VELLORE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions, one by the Management of erstwhile Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation, now known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division II) Limited and the other by the workman of the said corporation filed against the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 1053 of 1993 and pray to quash the same.

(2.) In WP No. 2474 of 1996 filed by the Corporation, it is stated that the 2nd respondent was employed as a Driver in the Petitioner Corporation; that on 16 -07 -1989 at 6.45 a.m. while the 2nd respondent was on duty and driving the corporation bus from Madras to Arani, at the junction of Thirumazhisai -Poonamallee, the 2nd respondent dashed against a girl and caused her death. Charges were framed against him for negligence and an enquiry was conducted in accordance with Rules and Regulations. The enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges. The petitioner Corporation accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and removed the workman/2nd respondent from services by order dated 03 -03 -1990. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 1030 of 1993 (Old ID No. 136 of 1991) for reinstatement with back wages. The labour court found that the accident was due to the negligence of the girl, who suddenly crossed the road and that therefore the 2nd respondent has not committed any negligence and ordered reinstatement with 50% backwages from 09 -03 -1990 till reinstatement. This award is being challenged by the Management as well as the workman in these writ petitions.

(3.) The learned advocate for the Corporation has submitted that the order passed by the labour court is not proper for the reason that when once the labour court comes to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner and that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, it should have accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and confirmed the order passed by the Corporation. If for any reason the labour court comes to a conclusion that the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer was insufficient, it should have remanded the matter back to the enquiry officer to hold an enquiry afresh. In the instant case, the labour court had come to a conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner and the principles of natural justice were not violated as such the labour court erred in not confirming the order passed by the Management.