E.RAJENDRAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the first respondent-Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, High Court Compound, Chennai, in I.D.No.45 of 1997, dated 19.04.1999, by calling for the records connected thereto, insofar as negativing the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service, with continuity of service and backwages.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service of the second respondent Corporation on 12.12.1986 as Driver. On 17.01.1993, he was on duty in the bus bearing registration No.MD31/10180 in Route No.D60/L and while the bus was proceeding to Chinglepet from Tambaram, due to rash and negligent driving, an accident had occurred at 10.40 hours, in which the bus had collided with a Car and caused death of 2 persons and injuries to 22 persons. After two hours of the accident, the Traffic Inspector of the second respondent Corporation inspected the accident spot and thereby gave a report to the Management. On the basis of the report, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 04.02.1993 seeking explanation. Thereafter, on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted his explanations on 10.02.1993, denying all the charges. The second respondent Corporation, being not satisfied with the explanations offered by the petitioner, ordered for an enquiry. In the enquiry proceedings, one Madasamy, Traffic Inspector, who visited the accident spot, deposed that the accident had occurred only due to the fault of both drivers, namely, car driver and the petitioner. However, in his expert opinion, it was deposed that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Finally, the Enquiry Officer, after completion of the enquiry proceedings, submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the second respondent Corporation issued a second show cause notice dated 13.05.1994 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. On receipt of the second show cause notice, the petitioner also had submitted his explanations stating that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and bad in law. However, the second respondent Corporation, by its order dated 28.11.1995, dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, he preferred an Industrial Disputes before the Labour Court/first respondent in I.D.No.45 of 1997. Upon hearing both sides as well as perusing documents, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 19.04.1999, rejecting the the claim of the petitioner. As against the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) IN support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Jeeva Transport Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal and another (1994 (2) LLJ 350), wherein it is held thus in para 3: