MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION KUMBAMNNAM DIVISION 1 LIMITED KUMBAKONAM Vs. S ARULANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed by the State Transport Corporation seeking to quash the award of the Labour Court, Cuddalore, dated December 19, 2000, in I.D. No. 130 of 1992.

(2.) The first respondent employee, in his claim statement before the Labour Court, contended that he was employed as driver bearing Staff No. 3158 in Cholan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. On February 14, 1984 when he was on duty in bus bearing registration No.TMN 4749 plying from Tiruchy to Tanjavur, the bus met with an accident due to the negligence of a motorcyclist in which the cyclist died and the girl who was pillion rider sustained injuries. A criminal case was filed and after investigation chargesheet was filed before the Criminal Court. Finally he was acquitted by the Criminal Court on March 6, 1986. However, even while the criminal case was pending, the management initiated parallel departmental proceedings. A charge memo was given to the petitioner on February 21, 1984 for which the petitioner filed his explanation on February 23, 1984. An enquiry was held on April 4, 1984 and a second show-cause notice was issued on April 25, 1984. An explanation was filed by the petitioner on May 14, 1984 and the final order removing the first respondent/employee from service, was passed by the disciplinary authority on May 30, 1984.

(3.) The employee further contended that he was not responsible for the accident nor rash or negligent. The request of the petitioner not to proceed with the domestic enquiry pending the criminal case was turned down by the management. Hence, the action of the management was not justified. The accident did not amount to a dereliction of duty as contemplated under the Standing Orders. In the case of the accident it is only the Court of law which is competent to decide the cause of the accident and the responsibility of the driver. The departmental action was initiated only on the basis of the wrong opinion of the Branch Manager, Tiruchy Unit, who was the only witness examined in the domestic enquiry. He was not an eye-witness to the accident and he was not at all present on the spot at the time of 5 the accident. Nor did he inspect the spot. Therefore, the opinion of the said officer and the acceptance of the same by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority were vitiated. There was no proof of any carelessness or 10 negligence on the part of the driver. The explanations of the driver/employee, dated February 23, 1984 and May 14, 1984, have not been properly considered. It is further stated that as per the settlement arrived at between the 15 union and the Management under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the management was bound by the decision of the Criminal Court in accident cases. It is further stated that reference to past conduct was not justified as 20 the same was not brought to his notice along with the second show-cause notice. Adverse past record if any, must be put to the notice of the delinquent and it is all the more necessary for assessing the quantum of punishment under 25 Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.