Labour court order upheld
30/10/2019 , Staff Reporter, Madurai
In a relief to a bus driver, the Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi division, against a labour court order that had given the driver a clean chit in an accident case.
The Corporation in its petition challenged the order of the labour court that had concluded that the driver A. Sundar was not responsible for the accident that involved a bus and a car.
It was said that in July 2000, the bus en route from Karaikudi to Dindigul met with an accident. The head-on collision resulted in three deaths and three seriously injured. The driver was held responsible for the accident and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him.
He was terminated from service. The driver moved the labour court which set aside the termination order and directed the Corporation to reinstate him with continuity of service.
Justice S.S. Sundar observed that the Corporation had not examined any one before the labour court and had relied on the inquiry report. Also, the conductor had submitted that the driver was not responsible for the accident. With no material to prove the charge against the driver, the labour court had concluded that the driver was not responsible for the accident.
The Corporation had not produced any independent witness to prove that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving, this court has no reason to interfere with the order of the labour court.
30/10/2019 , Staff Reporter, Madurai
In a relief to a bus driver, the Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi division, against a labour court order that had given the driver a clean chit in an accident case.
The Corporation in its petition challenged the order of the labour court that had concluded that the driver A. Sundar was not responsible for the accident that involved a bus and a car.
It was said that in July 2000, the bus en route from Karaikudi to Dindigul met with an accident. The head-on collision resulted in three deaths and three seriously injured. The driver was held responsible for the accident and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him.
He was terminated from service. The driver moved the labour court which set aside the termination order and directed the Corporation to reinstate him with continuity of service.
Justice S.S. Sundar observed that the Corporation had not examined any one before the labour court and had relied on the inquiry report. Also, the conductor had submitted that the driver was not responsible for the accident. With no material to prove the charge against the driver, the labour court had concluded that the driver was not responsible for the accident.
The Corporation had not produced any independent witness to prove that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving, this court has no reason to interfere with the order of the labour court.
No comments:
Post a Comment