M CHELLA THAMBI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the award of the first respondent dated 12.4.96 in I.D.No.310 of 1991 holding that the non employment of the petitioner was justified and therefore, he was not entitled for any relief.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a driver in the second respondent Corporation. While so, on 20.1.89, while he was driving a passenger bus bearing Registration No.TML-6242 from Thirupuvanampudur to Anna bus stand, he caused an accident at a place called Silaiman by dashing the bus on an aged mentally challenged lady, who, subsequently, died in the Government Hospital, Madurai. Further, it is stated that in the said accident, he also caused damage to a nearby co-operative society retail outlet and the goods stocked there. In the accident, it is stated that the conductor suffered fracture injuries. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 15.2.89. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 9.3.89. Thereafter, an enquiry was held and based on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service on 29.11.90. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which came to be numbered as I.D.No.310 of 1991 on the file of the first respondent. In the said dispute, initially a preliminary award came to be passed as regards the fairness of the enquiry. The said award was dated 4.1.93. In the preliminary award, the first respondent took the view that the enquiry was not fair and proper and since the second respondent had sought for an opportunity to let in fresh evidence, the dispute was posted again for that purpose. Thereafter, the second respondent examined M.W.1 on its side. The petitioner did not let in any oral evidence. Exs.W.1 to W.5 were marked on the side of the petitioner, while Exs.M.1 to M.11 were marked on the side of the second respondent. The first respondent/Labour Court has passed an award in the said I.D. on 12.4.96 holding that the non-employment was fully justified.

(3.) Assailing the said award, Mr.Saravanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the version of M.W.1 was disbelieved by the first respondent in its own preliminary award dated 4.1.93 and in the circumstances, the reliance placed upon the very same version by the first respondent in its final award cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, when the evidence of M.W.1 is to be eschewed from consideration, in the absence of any other acceptable evidence as regards the manner in which the accident had taken place on 20.1.89, the conclusion of the first respondent finding the petitioner guilty of the charge of rash and negligent driving cannot be accepted. The learned counsel further contended that when the petitioner has made it clear in his explanation as to the manner in which the accident had taken place, it was on the second respondent Corporation to have countered the said version by letting in appropriate acceptable evidence before the first respondent and therefore, in the absence of such material, the conclusion of the first respondent in the impugned award cannot be upheld.