MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU Vs. K RAMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award made in I.D. No. 31 of 2001 dated 11.8.2000 of the Labour Court, Madurai directing reinstatement of the first respondent without back-wages, but with continuity of service from 18.3.2000, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-V) Limited, Virudhunagar, has filed the present Writ Petition. According to the writ petitioner, the first respondent was employed as a driver from 15.2.1993 onwards in the Transport Corporation. On 7.5.1998, the first respondent caused an accident resulting in the death of a pedestrian, for which charges were levelled vide proceedings in bjh.c.J/22/365 dated 16.5.1998. The charges are as follows:--

(2.) Upon hearing both sides and considering the evidence and materials available on record, the Labour Court, Madurai, came to the conclusion that the accident could have been avoided, had the first respondent been diligent and careful, while driving the bus at the time of occurrence. The Labour Court further held that the charge, as framed by the respondent that he was in dozed condition, while driving the bus, was not proved. The Labour Court held that the punishment awarded to the first respondent was disproportionate and consequently, set aside the same by its award dated 6.3.2008 and ordered reinstatement of the first respondent, but without back-wages. The Labour Court, at paragraph 10 of its award has categorically observed that had the driver/first respondent driven the bus cautiously, he could have avoided the accident. Paragraph 10 of the order reads as follows:--

(3.) Assailing the Award, reinstating the first respondent, Mr. A. P. Muthupandian, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that when the Labour Court has categorically arrived at the specific finding of negligence, the award directing reinstatement of the first respondent in the Transport Corporation with continuity of service ought not to have been made. According to the learned counsel for the Corporation, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and he, therefore, submitted that the Labour Court has manifestly erred in directing reinstatement of the first respondent, driver. Hence, he has prayed to set aside the impugned award.