Domestic enquiry findings perverse without eyewitness 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 challenging disciplinary actions. A driver employed by a transport corporation faced a charge memo for rash and negligent driving causing injuries to pedestrians. An enquiry found the charge proved, leading to punishment of withholding increment for six months. The Labour Court set aside the punishment due to lack of cogent evidence, as no eyewitnesses, including the conductor, were examined, rendering the enquiry perverse. The Labour Court framed the issue of whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, answering affirmatively on procedure but finding substantive evidence deficient. The court relied solely on the post-incident Inspector's statement without eyewitness corroboration, holding the enquiry findings perverse and punishment unsustainable. Proper appreciation of materials justified setting aside the punishment. The writ petition challenging the Labour Court award was dismissed, upholding the setting aside of the punishment.

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated

23.04.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in O.P.I.D. No.12 of

2023.

2. The respondent, Murugan, while serving as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation, was issued with a charge memo alleging that, due to rash and negligent driving, he dashed against pedestrians, resulting in injuries to them. An 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 six months with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, 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.W14, and the petitioner Management marked documents as Ex.M1 to Ex.M16. 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 the occurrence, was examined. The only witness relied upon was the Inspector, who had investigated the incident after the occurrence. Except for the evidence of the said Inspector, there was no cogent material 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. In such circumstances, the finding of the Enquiry Officer, based solely on the statement of the Inspector and in the absence of any cogent evidence, is perverse. Consequently, the order of punishment passed by the petitioner, 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, JThe Management, General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited – AppellantVersusGeneral Secretary, Nellai District Transport Labour Association (CITU), V.Murugan – RespondentW.M.P.(MD)No.6500 of 2026

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