O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for all the connected and relevant records relating to the Award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer Ist Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the second respondent herein in I.D.No.60 of 2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages together with all attendant benefits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 05.05.1980 as Staff van driver by the first respondent Corporation and he was promoted as a Heavy Vehicle Driver on 02.01.1982. From 1982 onwards, he was working as a driver of the Tourist buses operated by the first respondent Corporation in various tours organised by the Corporation. The Corporation was arranging tours throughout South India and he had been discharging his duties as a tourist driver to the satisfaction of the tourists who travelled in the bus.

(ii) The petitioner was given duty to drive the Tourist Bus Luxury Coach TSE 8687 for five days Leave Travel Concession tour from 20.12.1992 to 24.12.1992, organised by the Corporation. It is a concessional tour meant only for Government servant and the petitioner was the only driver for driving the vehicle. Apart from the petitioner, there were guide and cleaner in the bus, they both were casual labourers in the Corporation. The tour was from Chennai to Kumbakkonam – Thanjavur, Rameswaram and Kanyakumari, Madurai, Chennai. The night halts were at Thanjavur, Rameswaran, Kanyakumari and Madurai. When the petitioner took the bus at 11:30 a.m. on 23.12.1992 Kanyakumari to Madurai, another driver T.Sivagnanam of the Corporation who was working as Water Tank Driver in Tamil Nadu Hotel at Kanniyakumari belonging to the Corporation, requested the petitioner to permit him to travel in the bus till Madurai. As he is a co-employee, the petitioner permitted him and T.Sivagnanam was also a luxury coach driver of the Corporation who was working in Madras and he was senior to the petitioner. The petitioner reached Sri Rangam, subsequently the passengers wanted to visit Samayapuram Mariamman Temple and the petitioner took them to Samayapuram. T.Sivagnanam who came with the petitioner told him that he had worked at Chennai and he wants to continue to travel with him and after reaching Samayapuram, the petitioner had loose motion and suffered from diarhoea and he became tired and giddy and was unable to drive the vehicle, hence requested T.Sivagnanam to drive the bus from Samayapuram to Chennai and the petitioner lied down in the bus and slept for some time. When he woke up, he was surprised to see that the bus had again come back to Trichy instead of proceeding to Chennai and passengers were getting down. When the petitioner asked T.Sivagnanam, as why the bus had returned to Trichy, he told that the passengers requested him to return to Trichy for taking lunch and the petitioner scolded T.Sivagnanam and the passengers that it was wrong on their part to return to Trichy.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner again felt ill and the Manager of Hotel Tamil Nadu, Trichy, did not permit the petitioner to drive the bus to Chennai and the petitioner stayed that night at Trichy and next day morning he took the bus and reached Chennai office. The Manager of Hotel Tamil Nadu, Trichy arranged Tiruvalluvar Transport Bus for the passengers to reach Chennai. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.12.1992 and explanation was called for from the petitioner. A charge memo dated 25.01.1993 was given to the petitioner based on fabricated and false complaint from alleged tourists stating that the petitioner had unauthorisedly permitted T.Sivagnanam to drive the bus since he had consumed liquor while on duty in the presence of tourists and that the petitioner neglected his duties and responsibilities and tarnished the image of the Corpora