Management cannot pursue disciplinary action contradicting its established position in prior legal proceedings, reaffirming the binding nature of its earlier claims.

JUDGMENT :

C. Kumarappan, J.

The appellant and the respondent are the petitioner and the respondent respectively before the Writ Court.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Writ Court.

3.It appears that the 2^nd respondent has raised an industrial dispute in respect of one reserve driver R.Jothi Basu, as his duty was deferred for a period of six months. When the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.340 dated 25.05.2018, the Labour Court after elaborate enquiry has ultimately found vide order dated 13.10.2020 that the deference of the employee R.Jothi Basu for a period of six months is not justifiable and ultimately issued necessary, consequential directions. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner-Management preferred a writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge having found that the Management is not entitled to approbate and reprobate their stand one before the Labour Court and other before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved with the order of the Writ Court, the present appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

4.Heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.H.Nandhini, learned counsel for the respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that though the petitioner-Management has taken a defence before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the driver R.Jothi Basu was not rash and negligent, the Tribunal ultimately found against them and fixed the liability. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the mere defence put forth before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will in no way constitute an estoppel or cannot be put against the petitioner/Manangement in a disciplinary proceedings against their employee. He would further contend that the counter statement filed by them in MCOP.No.72 of 2014 cannot be construed as an admission of fact so as to deprive them to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in WP.No.39563 of 2004 [V.Syril Sundararaj Vs. The Presiding Officer and others] dated 01.04.2024. Hence, prayed to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that before the Motor Accident Tribunal, the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the workman/driver was not rash and negligent. However, the Management having taken such defence that their driver was not negligent in total disregard to the above stand has no locus to frame charge for negligent driving against the workmen, which is in violation to the fairness of the procedures. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik reported in (2025) 4 SCC 321. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal.

7.We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.

8.It is an admitted fact that the Management has taken a defence that the workman was not at all negligent, and it was only due to the poor road condition, the accident has occurred. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph 5 of the counter statement:-

“5.The respondent does not admit the manner of accident as narrated by the petitioners in Col.23 of the petition to be true and genuine. This respondent humbly states below