THE MANAGEMENT OF TNSTC (COIMBATORE) LTD. versus M.CHANDRASEKARAN

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 02-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 266 
A 
THE MANAGEMENT OF TNSTC (COIMBATORE) LTD. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
M.CHANDRASEKARAN 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6765-66of2014) 
SEPTEMBER 02, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.33(2J(b) -
Scope of 
;urisdiction of Joint Commissioner - Respondent employed as a 
driver by appellant caused fatal accident - Enquiry Officer found 
him guilty - Disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal -
Appellant filed an application (approval petition) uls.33(2)(b) of 
the Act, before Joint Commissioner - Joint Commissioner held 
enquiry officers report perverse, refused to accord approval for 
dismissal of respondent - High Court upheld the decision of Joint 
Commissioner - On appeal, held - The Commissioner exceeded his 
iurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence adduced before the 
enquiry officer and in substituting his own judgment to that of 
Disciplinary authority - It was not a case of no legal evidence 
produced during the enquiry by the department, in relation to the 
charges framed against the respondent - Considering the fact that 
there was adequate material produced in the Departmental enquiry 
evidencing that fatal accident was caused by the respondent while 
driving the vehicle 011 duty, the burden to prove that accident 
occurred due to some other cause than his own negligence was on 
re~pondent - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the 
facts of the case-Application uls. 33(2)(b) allowed. 
Chalan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam 
(2005) 3 sec 241: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 1123 -
relied on. 
A. Mariasundararaj v. Cheran Tramport Corporation 
Ltd.in W.A. No. 2238 of 2000; State of Haryana & 
Others v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491; Divisional 
Controller KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T. Mane (2005) 3 
SCC 254; Thakur SinKh v. State of Punjab (2003) 9 
sec 208- referred to. 
266 
THE MANAGEMENT OF TNSTC (COIMBATORE) LTD. v. M. 
267 
CHANDRASEKARAN 
Case Law Reference 
W.A. No. 2238 of 2000 
referred to 
Para3 
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 1123 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1977) 2 sec 491 
referred to 
Para 10 
(2005) 3 sec 254 
referred to 
Para 10 
(2(103) 9 sec 208 
referred to 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6765-
6766 of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2013 of the High Court 
A 
B 
of Judicature at Madras in W. A. Nos. 2082 & 2083 of2013. 
C 
R. Ayyam Perumal, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
· Beno Benzi gar, Soma Sundram, P. Soma Sundaram, Ad vs. for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. These appeals challenge the 
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 
dated 22.11.2013, in Writ Appeal Nos. 2082 and 2083 of2013. 
2. Briefly stated, the respondent was employed as a driver by the 
appellant on 14.04.1986. While on duty on 15.01.2003, on vehicle TN-
38-0702, during a trip from Kovai Ukkadam to Pollachi, near 
Vadakkipalayam he caused an accident with a car bearing No. TMA 
4845 coming from the opposite direction resulting in fatal injuries to 
persons travelling in that car. Disciplinary enquiry was instituted against 
the respondent inter alia on the charge of driving the bus in a rash and 
negligent manner. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of 
the charges framed in Charge Memo dated 22.01.2003. The Disciplinary 
Authority after giving opportunity to the respondent passed order of 
dismissal on 13.10.2003. The appellant then submitted an application, 
·being Approval Petition No. 480 of2003, under Section 33(2)(b) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Joint Commissioner Labour 
(Conciliation), Chennai as an industrial dispute was pending for conciliation 
before him. The Labour Commissioner, after analysing the material 
placed before him in the said proceeding noted that the Department only 
examined two witnesses who were also cross-examined by the 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
268 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
respondent. The respondent examined himself as defence witness, but 
was not cross-examined by the Department. The Commissioner, however, 
found that the enquiry against the respondent was conducted in 
accordance with the principles of natural justice and al so in conformity 
with the Standing Orders. While dealing with the quality of evidence 
adduced by the Department, the Commissioner found that the same, by 
no standard woul'd substantiate the charge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.