BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 25.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.22345 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.19332 of 2025 K.Thangavelu ... Petitioner versus The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the award dated 22.08.2019 in I.D.No.8 of 2008 passed by the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to pay the petitioner backwages and all monetary benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation and also terminal/pension benefits, by treating him to have been reinstated in service with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : M/s.L.Jeen Felix

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, in I.D.No.8 of 2008, dated

22.08.2019.

2. The petitioner, a driver of the Transport Corporation, was on duty in a bus bearing Reg.No.TN 45 N 1536, on 07.12.2003, for the trip from Trichy to Coimbatore and when the bus was proceeding near Mathapur bus stop at about 9.45 a.m, he overtook a mini bus parked on the left side, in spite of noticing a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle and caused the death of the motorcyclist. Therefore, a criminal case was registered as against the petitioner in Crime No.760 of 2003, on the file of Palladam Police Station, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. Based on the First Information Report, the Transport Corporation has initiated a disciplinary proceeding as against the petitioner and thereafter, he was dismissed from service, by order dated 26.05.2004. Challenging the same, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in I.D.No.8 of 2008. The Labour Court, having found that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, dismissed the industrial dispute in I.D.No.8 of 2008, by order dated 22.08.2019. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the motorcyclist, who died in the accident, was not having any valid driving licence, however, the Palladam Police Station has mechanically registered a criminal case as against the petitioner and also filed the final report. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, by Judgment dated 24.09.2009, in C.C.No.154 of 2004, found the petitioner guilty and also convicted him for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC, which was also confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupur, by Judgment dated 10.06.2010, in C.A.No.128 of 2009. However, this Court, by order dated 14.07.2017, in Crl.R.C.No.1259 of 2010, set aside the Judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, in C.C.No.154 of 2004, dated 24.09.2009, holding that the motorcyclist was not having any valid driving licence and therefore, the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability for the accident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, as per the Standing Orders, the Management ought to have reviewed the order of punishment under Clause 61 of the 12(3) Settlement.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased motorcyclist have also filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Tiruppur, in M.C.O.P.No. 354 of 2004, wherein, the Transport Corporation has taken a stand in favour of petitioner that the accident is due to the negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. Once they have taken a stand before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal that the accident is due to