IMPORTANT POINT
The management's defense in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal does not prevent it from taking disciplinary action against an employee, as estoppel requires a clear representation that the other party relied upon to their detriment, which was not present in this case.

ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question :

“Whether the Management is precluded from initiating disciplinary proceedings against its driver on the allegation that he had caused the accident due to his rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle, in view of the contrary stand taken before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, wherein the Management had taken a plea that the driver was neither negligent nor rash in driving the vehicle?”

2. Facts leading to the reference:

2.1. W.P.No.39563 of 2004 came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Mr. S. Nagamuthu, J. on 29.03.2012. At the time of hearing, a judgment of a Division Bench in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and Another vs. S. Karuppusamy, (2008) 3 LW 90, was cited before him. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Management had filed a counter in MCOP.No.498 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srivilliputhur that the accident had happened, only due to the negligent and rash driving on the part of the driver of the Matador van, in which the claimants were travelling and that, the writ petitioner had driven the bus belonging to TNSTC in a slow and careful manner. On the basis of this counter, the writ petitioner argued before the learned Single Judge that as the Management had contended that there was no mistake on the part of the writ petitioner/driver of the bus before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it is precluded from initiating any disciplinary proceedings.

2.2. Doubting the view taken by the Division Bench, while being conscious of the fact that he cannot disagree or dissent from the same, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to Hon'ble The Chief Justice to place the same before the larger bench. For this purpose, the learned Single Judge had relied upon paragraph 12(2) of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673. Accordingly, Hon'ble The Chief Justice had referred the matter to a Full Bench for answering the aforesaid question framed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the matter is before us.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was given the duty of driving a bus belonging to the State Express Transport Corporation from Trichirapalli to Nagercoil. While the bus was proceeding to Virudhunagar, a Matador goods van bearing Registration No.TNV 4441, which was proceeding from Tiruchendhur to Coimbatore, colluded with the bus driven by the writ petitioner. In this accident, five persons have lost their lives and five persons including the writ petitioner were injured.

4. Immediately after the accident, a charge memo had been issued to the writ petitioner, for which he gave an explanation. A domestic enquiry was conducted on 25.04.1992 and a report was submitted by the enquiry officer finding the writ petitioner guilty. The second show cause notice was issued on 17.07.1992, for which a reply was given on 08.09.1992.

5. Considering the circumstances of the case, the respondent/ Management took a decision to terminate the writ petitioner from service. This was challenged by him before the Labour Court in I.D.No.14 of 2000. The Industrial Dispute was dismissed by an order dated 30.12.2003 and since there was no other remedy for the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition.

6. As stated above, the stand of the writ petitioner is that since the second respondent/State Express Transport Corporation has stated in their counter before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.498 of 1993 that the writ petitioner had driven the bus slowly and carefully with strict compliance of traffic rules and the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased driver of the Matador van, it estops the Management from taking a different view regarding the nature of accident in the disciplinary proceedings as well as in the