J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court made in W.P.No.14965 of 2017 dated 02.08.2023, in and by which the writ court, while setting aside the award of the Labour Court, upheld the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed on the employee.

The brief facts that led to the litigation are as follows:-

2. The appellant who was working as a driver in the respondent Corporation, was driving the bus from Chidambaram to Salem on 04.03.2009, at around 7.45p.m., the conductor of the bus, who was admittedly travelling on the foot-board fell down and lost his life.

3. The appellant was charged with rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of the conductor. After the departmental enquiry, the appellant was visited with the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for two years. In the departmental appeal, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years was modified and the punishment imposed was reduced to stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect.

4. Aggrieved, an Industrial Dispute was raised by the Union in I.D.No.69 of 2013. The Labour Court, on examination of the evidence on record, found that there is no evidence to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. The Labour Court also faulted the conductor for having travelled on the foot-board. Hence, the Labour Court set aside the punishment.

5. An issue regarding the pay anomaly was raised and the Management was directed to rectify the pay anomaly also. Aggrieved by the award, the Corporation filed the above writ petition and the writ court had interfered with the award of the Labour Court and restored the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect while sustaining the direction regarding rectification of pay anomaly. Aggrieved, the workman is before us.

6. We have heard Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.M.Aswin, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, and Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent.

7. Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the writ court was not justified in interfering with the award, which is based on the evidence on record. He would also drew our attention to the settled position of law that the writ court will not interfere with the award of the Labour Court unless they are perverse or against law.

8. Learned counsel would drew our attention to the award of the Labour Court, which examines the evidence on record in detail and reaches the conclusion that there is no evidence to establish the negligence on the part of the driver and it was the conductor who was at fault, as he was not expected to travel on the foot-board of the bus.

9. Contending contra, Mr.M.Aswin, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent would submit that this is because of the negligent and rash driving, the conductor fell down from the bus, resulting in his death.

Therefore, the punishment is justified.

10. We have considered the rival submissions.

11. The charge against the appellant would be that he is guilty of rash and negligent driving. The accident had occurred at about 7.45 p.m. Even according to the Management, the conductor was travelling on the rear foot-board of the bus. No person is expected to travel on the foot-board of the bus be it a conductor or an ordinary passenger. If a conductor chooses to travel on the foot-board of the bus and invites an accident, the driver cannot be blamed or faulted for rash and negligent driving.

12. The Tribunal has pointed out that non of the witnesses examined either during the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court have seen the accident. From the very charges the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that it is the conductor who should be blamed for negligence than t