GENERAL MANAGER, TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the General Manager of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, challenging the soundness of the impugned award made in I.D.No.353 of 2002 dated 24.1.2008, in which the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the second respondent-Driver-S.Jagadeesan, directing the petitioner-Management to reinstate him in service without backwages, but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-Transport Corporation, assailing the impugned award, pleaded before this Court that when the second respondent was employed as a Driver in the petitioner-Corporation on 18.2.92, unfortunately, within a short span of three months, had repeatedly caused two fatal accidents. On the first occasion, when he had caused the fatal accident on 1.5.94, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and after enquiry, though a punishment of dismissal from service was proposed for the proven charges, by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to correct himself, ultimately, the said punishment was modified to one of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. During the currency of the said punishment, unfortunately, within a short span of three months i.e., on 5.8.94, he had again repeated the same rash and negligent driving, which resulted in taking away of another life of a lady scooterist. Though he was subjected to criminal proceedings for the two fatal accidents, finally, he was acquitted by the Criminal Courts on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. However, since the registration of the criminal cases will not deter the management to take departmental action against the second respondent-Driver, after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the second respondent, the enquiry was completed. When the findings given by the enquiry officer holds him guilty that the second respondent, while driving the bus on a special trip near Iyyappanthangal at 9.30 hours on 5.8.94, had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner violating the traffic rules and ran over a lady scooterist, the disciplinary authority, losing confidence in him, passed the order of dismissal on 31.3.95. Unfortunately, he pleaded, after the order of dismissal was passed, the second respondent slept over the matter for over seven long years and without even showing any sufficient cause for the long delay of seven years, raised an industrial dispute only during March, 2002 before the First Additional Labour Court. Learned counsel further argued that the Labour Court, having recorded a specific finding in favour of the Management that the second respondent was given a fair and reasonable opportunity in the enquiry, wrongly interfered with the order of dismissal, even without dealing with the long delay of seven years. When the Labour Court had lost judicial sight of the whole issue that the second respondent has repeatedly caused the fatal accident, that too within a short span of three months, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner, directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the second respondent without backwages, but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. This finding of the First Additional Labour Court, he pleaded, is erroneous for the reason that the previous service record of the second respondent was not even taken note of by the petitioner-Management. Secondly, the second respondent, having suffered an order of dismissal at the hands of the petitioner-Management on 31.3.95, accepted the said order and had almost kept quiet for seven long years. But after a lapse of seven years, he had approached the First Additional Labour Court only in the month of March, 2002 without even assigning any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of seven years. Unfortunately, the First Additional Labour Court, he pleaded, without even assigning any single reason for accepting the delay of seven years and also without considering the two fatal accidents repeatedly caused by the second respondent on account of his rash and negligent driving within a short span of three months, accepting untenable submissions, interfered with the order of dismissal. This clearly shows that the Labour Court has completely failed to take into account the safety of the road users, the public and also the reasoning given by the disciplinary authority for passing the order of dismissal against the second respondent. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the impugned award.

(3.) No one appears for the second respondent.