Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli – Appellant
Versus
The General Secretary, Nellai, Chidambaranar, Kumari District, State Transport Employees Union – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD)No.6808 of 2026 | O.P.I.D No.129 of 2022 | O.P.I.D. No. 129 of 2023

Advocates:
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Michael Heldon Kumar
For Respondents:

Domestic enquiry findings perverse without eyewitnesses or cogent evidence; punishment set aside by Labour Court, upheld on writ.

Headnote:The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under Sections 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(d), governs industrial disputes arising from disciplinary actions. A driver employed by the transport corporation was charged with rash and negligent driving causing injury in an accident. Domestic enquiry found charges proved, leading to punishment of withholding increment for one year. Labour Court set aside the punishment due to lack of eyewitness testimony and cogent evidence, holding the enquiry perverse. High Court upheld the Labour Court's findings, finding no illegality. Issues framed included whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. Labour Court affirmed fairness but found no eyewitnesses examined, only non-eyewitness Assistant Manager's evidence, rendering findings perverse. Corporation had attributed negligence to another driver before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, undermining the charge. Ratio: Punishment unsustainable without cogent evidence supporting rash and negligent driving. Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenges to labour court award on driver's punishment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. labour court found no eyewitnesses examined. (Para 3)
3. enquiry perverse without cogent evidence. (Para 4)
4. award upheld; writ petition dismissed. (Para 5)

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated

04.07.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in O.P.I.D. No. 129 of 2023.

2. The respondent, K. Murugan, while serving as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation, was issued a charge memo alleging that, due to rash and negligent driving, he dashed against a moped, resulting in injuries to the rider. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer held the charge to be proved. Based on the said finding, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent raised an industrial dispute under Sections 10(1) (c) and 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

3. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and answered the same in the affirmative. Thereafter, the respondent marked documents as Ex.W1 to Ex.W9, and the petitioner Management marked documents as Ex.M1 to Ex.M11. The Labour Court found that none of the eyewitnesses to the accident, including the conductor who was present in the bus at the time of occurrence, was examined. The only witness examined was the Assistant Manager of the petitioner Corporation, who was not an eyewitness. Except for the evidence of the said Assistant Manager, no cogent material was placed before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate the allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent.

4. Further, the petitioner Corporation had attributed negligence to the offending driver and not to the respondent/workman before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In such circumstances, the finding of the Enquiry Officer, based solely on the statement of a non-eyewitness and in the absence of any cogent evidence, is perverse. Consequently, the order of punishment, founded on such findings, is also unsustainable.

5. The Labour Court, upon proper appreciation of the materials on record, has rightly set aside the punishment. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned award warranting interference.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document