M VELUCHAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is to quash the award made in I.D.No.168 of 1998 on the file of the first respondent and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits.

(2.) AT the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2003 itself and therefore a direction may be issued to pay all benefits upto 30.6.2003 and to pay the terminal benefits thereafter.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no independent witness nor the Conductor of the Bus having been examined, the second respondent management failed to establish the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner on 19.2.1987 at 10.45 p.m. while he was driving the Transport Corporation bus and only a Junior Engineer, who was not present in the scene of occurrence was examined and through whom the documents were marked and therefore the second respondent has not established the charges levelled against the petitioner even before the Labour Court, particularly when the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the conduct of domestic enquiry was upheld by the Labour Court. THE learned counsel also argued that in the criminal case registered against the petitioner in respect of the very same accident, the petitioner was acquitted and therefore the dismissal of the petitioner from his service is unsustainable.