Management of Pallavan Transport Corporation vs Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court and Another

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The petitioner, Management of Pallavan Transport Corporation, put in issue the award of the Labour Court, dated August 7, 1995, made in I.D.No. 831 of 1991, whereby the Labour Court allowed the claim petition of the second respondent thereby directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the second respondent in service with full back-wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

The precise facts are as follows:

The petitioner was driving a town bus in the Madras city in Route No. 18A, Fleet No. MD.690. On the fateful day, the vehicle met with an accident near Saidapet and fell under Maraimalai Adigal bridge. Apart from the criminal action taken against the second respondent, the petitioner terminated the service of the second respondent on the ground that he has caused the accident by his wilful negligent driving of the vehicle. That order has been passed after conducting an enquiry. That order has been put in issue under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and ultimately, I.D.No. 831 of 1991 has been preferred before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, as stated already, accepted the claim petition of the second respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate.

The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the principle of res ipsa loquitur would apply to the present case. The way in which the accident took place and the vehicle fell under the bridge would clearly prove that the second respondent has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

Controverting the said argument, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that there is no irregularity or illegality, which is manifest on the face of the record, so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise the same in favour of the petitioner.

Even in the criminal case, after an elaborate trial, the criminal Court acquitted the second respondent and also given a categorical and clear finding that the second respondent was not responsible for the accident that took place on the fateful day. Even in the departmental enquiry, nothing has been elicited or proved or brought home with necessary materials that the second respondent was responsible for the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. On the contrary, there were overwhelming materials before the enquiry officer that the accident took place because of a cyclist suddenly crossed the road unmindful of the road discipline. That factor has not been disputed by the petitioner anywhere. Even the management witnesses have also deposed to that effect before the Court and another witness, the conductor of another bus of Pallavan Transport Corporation, has also deposed to the same effect. It is interesting to note that conductor has also been examined on the side of the management. These evidence coupled with the judgment of the Criminal Court, which gave a clean chit in favour of the second respondent that he was not responsible for the accident have been taken as the basis to grant the relief in favour of the second respondent by the Labour Court.

The contention that res ipsa loquitur would apply to the case cannot be accepted on its face value. The principle would apply for the occurrence of the accident and it cannot be made applicable to find out who is responsible for the accident or whether the second respondent was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. On that teeth of the admitted fact and the evidence that a cyclist suddenly emerged across the road, which was the reason for the second respondent to apply the brake indiscriminately so as to save the life of the cyclist. Hence, the tyre marks on the road by itself would not conclude the issue that the second respondent has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to inflict a penalty of removal from service. Hence, I am of the view that there is absolutely no material made out so as to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as devoid of any merits. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos. 11526 of 1997 and 5427 of 1998 are also dismissed.