W.P.(MD)No.3937 of 2010

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 25.09.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

W.P.(MD)No.3937 of 2010

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010

The Management,

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation

(Madurai) Limited,

Dindigul Region,

Bye-Pass Road, Collectorate P.O.,

Dilndigul – 624 004.

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Madurai.

2.The Secretary,

Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokuvarathu Tholilar

Sangam (CITU),

V.P.Sithan Memorial,

51, Kilaku Arrokiamatha Theru,

Dindigul.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for

the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to its

proceedings order passed in I.D.No.97 of 2005, dated 31.10.2008

and quash the same.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

For R2

: Mr.S.Arunachalam

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed by the State Transport

Corporation as against the order of Labour Court in I.D.No.97 of

2005 modifying the punishment.

2.The second respondent Union espousing the cause of a

driver of the petitioner Management, raised an industrial dispute

in I.D.No.97 of 2005. The workman, in favour of whom, the

industrial dispute was raised by the second respondent, met with

an accident, when he was driving a bus bearing registration No TN-

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD)No.3937 of 2010

57-N-0942, resulting in injury of four passengers and heavy damage

caused to the bus. The workman was later suspended and a charge

memo was also issued on 28.11.2000. A domestic enquiry was

conducted and after giving full opportunity to the driver, the

Enquiry Officer submitted his report, dated 29.12.2001 holding

that the charges against the workman are proved.

3.Thereafter, as per the certified Standing Orders of the

petitioner Corporation, a second show cause notice was issued.

After hearing the workman in response to the second show cause

notice, the proposed punishment originally to remove the workman

from service was reduced into one of stoppage of increment for a

period of six months with cumulative effect. It was against the

order of punishment, the industrial dispute was raised by the

second respondent Union in I.D.No.97 of 2006.

4.The Labour Court found that the delinquency as against

the workman was proved. However, the Labour Court reduced the

punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect into

one of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without

cumulative effect. The Labour Court accepted the contention of

Union that the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative

effect cannot be imposed as per Standing Order. Challenging the

order of Labour Court, the Transport Corporation has preferred the

above writ petition.

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there can be punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative

effect as per the Standing Orders and that therefore, the Labour

Court cannot interfere with the punishment and modify the

punishment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied

upon an order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8946 of 2009, dated

31.07.2017. Wherein, taking into consideration the Standing

Orders, this Court framed an issue whether the stoppage of

increment with cumulative can be imposed by the Management. After

referring to Clause 17 of the Standing Order, the learned Judge

held that the power to impose the punishment of stoppage of

increment would also include the stoppage of increment with

cumulative effect. The writ petition filed by the Management was

allowed sustaining the punishment of stoppage of increment with

cumulative effect.

6.In the present case, the Labour Court has accepted the

findings of the Management regarding delinquency of workman. The

workman has caused a