AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is a State Transport Undertaking. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court dated 16.12.1997 in I.D.
No. 379/1995 the present writ petition has been filed.
The second respondent was a driver and while he was driving the bus on 28.10.1993 the bus met with an accident. It collided with another bus
belonging to Thiruvallur Transport Corporation and in that process 13 passengers died and severe damage was caused to both the vehicles. Three
charges were levelled against the second respondent, namely, causing loss due to rash and negligent driving to the Transport Corporation bus
which resulted in the death of 13 persons; causing severe loss to the Transport Corporation due to the vehicle being damaged; and having driven
the vehicle with over speed, contrary to the traffic rules. A domestic enquiry was conducted by the department and the 2nd respondent was
dismissed by order dated 11.1.1994. Against the dismissal a dispute was raised by the second respondent and the same was finally came to be
taken by the 1st respondent as I.D. No. 379/1995. On the side of the second respondent the counter filed by the petitioner corporation in
M.C.O.P. No. 76/1994 was filed. On the side of the writ petitioner 14 documents were filed, marked as Exs.M.1 to M.14. The Labour Court
held the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was proper and it was not vitiated. On the question of findings the Labour Court held that the
third charge, namely, over speed and driving contrary to the traffic rules was not proved. With reference to the first two charges it was held that
they were proved. Not only the second respondent, even the driver of the other bus was also held jointly responsible for the loss. In that view of
the matter, the Labour Court directed reinstatement without backwages but with continuity of service. However, the management submitted that
the second respondent has got a previous record. The Labour Court took that also into account. It is aggrieved by that award, the present writ
petition is filed.
Pending the writ petition this Court by an order dated 6.12.1999 directed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to be deposited to the credit of I.D. No.
379/1995 with the Labour Court. Out of which, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs. 10,000/-. The balance amount was to be
invested in a nationalised bank at Trichy for a period of three years. However, in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the
petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 2,400/- every month starting from January 2000 and it is stated that the said order has been complied with.
Today the learned Counsel for the petitioner after referring to the findings recorded by the Labour Court brought to the notice of this Court two
judgments. The first one is reported in 2000 (2) LLJ 902 (Anna Transport Corporation Ltd., v. P.O., Labour Court). In that judgment this Court
held that there cannot be any limitation on the powers of the labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. This
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not powerless to interfere with such conclusion if there is perversity. In that same judgment
which deals with the case of accident this Court held that even in the absence of any other eye-witness, the theory of `res ipso loquitur'' can be
applied and the Court can find out as to who was responsible for the accident and the negligence of the driver can also be ascertained. Hence, the
award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the driver who drove the vehicle negligently was set aside.
The learned Counsel also referred to the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2001(2) LLJ 391 (Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. A.M. Goud
(D) by Lrs.). In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that the award of the Labour Court in spite of the rash and negligent driving on the part of
the driver and not considering the past history directing the relief of reinstatement was illegal. But the workman expired by the time the matter
reached Supreme Court. The matter was not remitted back to the Labour Court and therefore prayed for setting aside the Award of the Labour
court in ordering reinstatement.
Mr. Ajay ghose, learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent was proceeded in a criminal case, though
convicted by the Sessions Court in C.C. No. 163/95 dated 12.5.2004, on revision in Crl.R.C. No. 2/2005 by a judgment dated 14.11.2006 this
Court set aside the punishment. He also referred to the following portion found in para 11 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
At this juncture, it would be apropos to look into the evidence of one P.T. Thomas who has been examined as PW4. He had clearly stated in his
evidence that on the fateful date of accident, he travelled in TTC Bus along with his wife and three children and also with his relatives and the TTC
Bus had been driven by the second accused Kamatchi and in the place of occurrence one lorry was proceedings from west to east and the second
accused had overtaken the same and the first accused, driver of RMTC bus had applied brake and due to that the accident had occurred. From
the other records available in this case, the Court is able to find out that the front portion of TTC Bus had dashed against the rear portion of
RMTC Bus, but it is not the case of head on collision. Since the Court is having a clear evidence to the fact that the second accused had overtaken
a lorry in the place of occurrence, the Court can easily come to the conclusion that the entire accident had happened only due to rash and negligent
driving of the second accused. If really the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of both the accused, definitely head on
collision would have happened in the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is made clear that the accident had taken place only due to rash and
negligent driving of the second accused, driver of TTC Bus. The Courts below had not analysed above aspect properly and erroneously, come to
the conclusion that the first accused was also liable for accident.
In so far as the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was concerned there was no eye witness and only the sketch of the area was
filed and taken note of. However, in the Criminal Court, P.W.4-P.T.Thomas was an eye witness and after accepting his evidence in the Criminal
Revision this Court gave a categoric finding that the second respondent had not driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. On that basis
(though the said judgment had come subsequently)yet in the interest of justice we cannot ignore the material fact in favour of the second
respondent.
Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner after perusal of the order is unable to comment upon the finding given by this Court in the
criminal case.
In view of the above, in order to render justice the said judgment is also looked into for the purpose of arriving at a fair conclusion. In the
present case the Labour Court has found the second respondent is not guilty of the third charge which relates to over speed and violation of traffic
rules with reference to the accident. It fixes joint responsibility which is a civil liability. In these circumstances, the award of the Labour Court does
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected pending miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the second respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest
lying in deposit with the Labour Court.