Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
S. Palani (Deceased) & Others - Appellant
Versus
nThe Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Villupuram & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 24662 of 2013
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Writ Petition - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25-F, Section 25-B, Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18 - The court discussed the continuous service of the deceased petitioner and the interpretation of 'actually worked under the employer' under Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also considered the provisions related to close days, weekly holidays, and wages for holidays under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. The legal provisions influenced the court's decision to provide compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner and consider compassionate ground appointment for the family members.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased petitioner, a driver, was suspended and later refused employment by the respondents after an accident. The petitioner's family sought alternative employment and relief through a writ petition. The petitioner passed away during the pendency of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted due to the petitioner's demise. However, considering the family's financial struggle, the court directed the respondents to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner and consider compassionate ground appointment for an eligible person in the family.
Issues: The main issue was the relief sought in the writ petition after the petitioner's demise. The court also considered the financial struggle of the deceased petitioner's family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need to address the financial struggle of the deceased petitioner's family by providing compensation and considering compassionate ground appointment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the respondents to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner and consider compassionate ground appointment for an eligible person in the family.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents, particularly order of the second respondent dated 23.07.2011, vide Ref.No.20077/Ne-2/TNGTC(V)/T.M./2011 and quash the same, consequentially direct the respondents to provide an alternative suitable job under the respondents by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2013.)
1. The relief sought by the petitioners / legal heirs of the deceased petitioner in this writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 23.07.2011, vide Ref.No.20077/Ne-2/TNGTC(V)/T.M./2011 and direct the respondents to provide an alternative suitable job by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2013.
2. The case of the deceased petitioner is that he was selected as a driver after personal interview on 23.07.2007 sponsored through District Employment Office, Thiruvanamalai. After selection, he was sent for proper training and thereafter he joined as a driver on daily basis for salary of Rs.179/- per day as per order dated 21.08.2007. Then after completion of daily rated employment successfully under the respondents and by an order dated 21.07.2009 on a monthly salary of Rs.5,335-90-6055-100-8255 he was posted at Koyembedu Depot as driver (DR-45024) right from the date of joining, he was very sincere, honest, in his service and he discharged his duty as per the instructions of the superior without any remarks whatsoever. On 25.08.2010, he was directed to take bus trip from Chennai to Salem. After reaching Salem at two o'clock midnight, immediately he returned to Chennai and while returning from Salem to Chennai near Athur Sarvai Koot Road, there was Taurus Lorry stopped side by in the opposite direction due to tyre puncture, the petitioner immediately was forced to stopped the bus but he could not have the control over the said bus. However, he stopped the vehicle putting sudden brake and in the meantime, the bus was ridden towards Taurus Lorry on the left side and due to accident, some of the passengers including the driver have got some minor injuries and minimum damage to the bus. However, the bus conductor namely Anbuselvam suffered major injuries and became unconscious, immediately he was taken to the hospital where he died and a case was registered by the Thalaivasal Police Station and the is same pending for enquiry, due to which the respondents have issued a suspension order for 30 days as per order dated 25.08.2010 and thereafter the deceased petitioner was deputed for the special training from 04.09.2010 at Thiruvanamalai and Villupuram for 12 days each place. While undergoing as a special trainee under the respondents, particularly under the first and second respondents, the second respondent sent a letter dated 11.11.2010 for reinstatement of his service as a driver under the respondents and he have also joined and discharged his service without any remarks for 18 working days of attendance under the respondents. In the meantime there was a domestic enquiry conducted on 14.12.2010 and therefore, he could not continue his service and he have also replied for the reasons for the said accident that took place on 25.08.2010, but either the result of domestic enquiry was supplied to the deceased petitioner nor was he permitted to resume his service after completion of the domestic enquiry under the respondents and thereby refused his employment under the respondents. Even though the deceased petitioner requested all the respondents orally and also by sending a representations, periodically from 04.09.2010 to 08.08.2013, the second respondent, however, refused an alternative employment under the respondents as per letter dated 23.07.2011 by giving so many reasons which is an self-explanatory one.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that at the time of joining his service under the respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to provide compensation and consider compassionate ground appointment in cases of employment disputes and the financial strug....
The court established that the acceptance of monetary benefits under duress does not preclude the right to seek alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Termination of services due to continued ill-health under Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act is valid, but equitable considerations necessitate compensation for workmen suffering job-rel....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents have an obligation to provide employment on compassionate basis to the legal heirs of deceased employees, even if the deceased....
Discrimination in employment disputes, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages as the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship and the interpretation of 'during the course of employment' under the Employees' Compensati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
