K.Gajendran, (Deceased) v. The Managing Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 27.06.2023 Pronounced on 16.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
1. A.K.Gajendran (deceased)
2. G.Gowri
3. G.Gowtham ... Petitioners P2 & P3 substituted as legal heirs in the place of the deceased petitioner as per order dated 12.11.2014 by CSKJ in M.P.No.1 of 2012 Vs.
1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Walajah Road, Chennai 600 002.
2. The Presiding Officer First Additional Labour Court High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.
... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for all the connected and relevant records relating to the Award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer Ist Additional Labour Court, Chennai the second respondent herein in
I.D.No.60 of 2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages together with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioners : M/s.S.Buvaneswari for P2 & P3 For Respondents : Mr.Haroon for M/s.T.S.Gopal & Co.,
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for all the connected and relevant records relating to the Award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer Ist Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the second respondent herein in I.D.No.60 of 2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages together with all attendant benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 05.05.1980 as Staff van driver by the first respondent Corporation and he was promoted as a Heavy Vehicle Driver on 02.01.1982. From 1982 onwards, he was working as a driver of the Tourist buses operated by the first respondent Corporation in various tours organised by the Corporation. The Corporation was arranging tours throughout South India and he had been discharging his duties as a tourist driver to the satisfaction of the
tourists who travelled in the bus.
(ii) The petitioner was given duty to drive the Tourist Bus Luxury Coach TSE 8687 for five days Leave Travel Concession tour from 20.12.1992 to 24.12.1992, organised by the Corporation. It is a concessional tour meant only for Government servant and the petitioner was the only driver for driving the vehicle. Apart from the petitioner, there were guide and cleaner in the bus, they both were casual labourers in the Corporation. The tour was from Chennai to Kumbakkonam - Thanjavur, Rameswaram and Kanyakumari, Madurai, Chennai. The night halts were at Thanjavur, Rameswaran, Kanyakumari and Madurai. When the petitioner took the bus at 11:30 a.m. on 23.12.1992 Kanyakumari to Madurai, another driver T.
Sivagnanam of the Corporation who was working as Water Tank Driver in Tamil Nadu Hotel at Kanniyakumari belonging to the Corporation, requested the petitioner to permit him to travel in the bus till Madurai. As he is a co-employee, the petitioner permitted him and T.Sivagnanam was also a luxury coach driver of the Corporation who was working in Madras and he was senior to the petitioner. The petitioner reached Sri Rangam, subsequently the passengers wanted to visit Samayapuram Mariamman Temple and the petitioner took them to Samayapuram. T.
Chennai and he wants to continue to travel with him and after reaching Samayapuram, the petitioner had loose motion and suffered from diarhoea and he became tired and giddy and was unable to drive the vehicle, hence requested T.Sivagnanam to drive the bus from Samayapuram to Chennai and the petitioner lied down in the bus and slept for some time. When he woke up, he was surprised to see that the bus had again come back to Trichy instead of proceeding to Chennai and passengers were getting down. When the petitioner asked T.Sivagnanam, as why the bus had returned to Trichy, he told that the passengers requested him to return to Trichy for taking lunch and the petitioner scolded T.Sivagnanam and the passengers that it was wrong on their part to return to Trichy.
3. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner again felt ill and the Manager of Hotel Tamil Nadu, Trichy, did not permit the petitioner to drive the bus to Chennai and the petitioner stayed that night at Trichy and next day morning he took the bus and reached Chennai office. The Manager of Hotel Tamil Nadu, Trichy arranged Tiruvalluvar Transport Bus for the passengers to reach Chennai. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.12.1992 and explanation was called for from the petitioner. A
charge memo dated 25.01.1993 was given to the petitioner based on fabricated and false complaint from alleged tourists stating that the petitioner had unauthorisedly permitted T.Sivagnanam to drive the bus since he had consumed liquor while on duty in the presence of tourists and that the petitioner neglected his duties and responsibilities and tarnished the image of the Corporation by his disorderly behaviour. The petitioner had failed to reach Madras within the stipulated time and thereby caused problem for the operation of Tirupathy tour on 26.12.1992 and caused loss of Rs.10,000/- to the Management. (ii) Thereafter the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.02.1993 denying the charges and stated what actually took place on 24.12.1992 and prayed for reinstatement.
Enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer held that Sivagnanam was not drunk and he was reinstated in service. On the basis of perverse finding of the enquiry officer, a show cause notice dated 04.12.1996 was issued and the petitioner submitted the explanation on 17.03.1997 and without considering the petitioner's explanation, the first respondent in a mechanical manner without application of mind to the facts in the case, passed a final order dated 20.05.1998 terminating the petitioner from service.
hurt to the passengers and no police complaint was given and no FIR was lodged against the petitioner and no medical report was filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had died on 14.09.2011 and his wife and son were brought on record as his legal heirs and the total number of service put up by the petitioner was 18 years. (iii) Then the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors and the same was rejected by order dated 04.11.1998. Then the petitioner preferred another appeal which was also rejected by order dated 19.03.1999.
(iv) As against the rejection of appeal by the Board, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12583 of 1999 before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass an order directing the petitioner to approach Labour Court under provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (v) The petitioner filed an application under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act challenging the order of termination before the Conciliation Officer which ended in failure. Hence, he filed I.D.No.60 of 2000
before the I Additional labour Court, Chennai and the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, by its Award dated 30.11.2007 dismissed the Industrial Dispute. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Ist Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent/The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Chennai, submitted that in the total 5 days trip, the first 4 days the petitioner had performed well and discharged his duty with responsibility but on the 5th day right from starting from Kanniyakumari, he was driving the bus in a rash manner. He further submitted that when the bus reached Trichy, the passengers informed to the Trichy Depot Manager that they are not willing to continue to travel in the bus which is driven by the petitioner. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the enquiry proceedings and the same is extracted hereunder:-
He further drew the attention of this Court to the deposition given by various witnesses and the same is extracted hereunder:- jpU rlnfhgd; mth;fspd; rhl;rpak;
ehd; thjp nghh;L jzpf;if mYtyf Ma;thsuhf gzpg[hpfpnwd;/ 24/12/92 md;W jpUr;rpapy; R/T fHfj;jpd; K:yk; 20/12/92 Kjy; 24/12/92 eh';fs; Rw;Wyh
5. The learned Standing Counsel submitted a gratuity calculation and the same is extracted hereunder:- GRATUITY CALCULATION Date of appointment Date of dismissal 20.05.1998 Date of death 14.09.2011 Last drawn wages Rs.2597.4 Gratuity till date of dismissal Rs.23,376.6 Rs.46,753.2 with interest Gratuity till date of death Rs.40,259.7 Rs.80,519.4 with interest
6. In the award passed by the second respondent-Labour Court, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had drunk and driven the bus in an intoxicated condition and the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion
based on the documents and evidence adduced by various persons who travelled in the bus.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. The deceased petitioner had drunk while driving the bus from Kanniyakumari to Madurai on 23.12.1992 after consuming liquor and driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner; all the passengers in the bus were scared about their lives. When the bus reached Trichy, the passengers decided not to continue in the same bus to Chennai and requested the Tamil Nadu Hotel Manager Trichy to arrange for an alternate bus and that they were not ready to travel in the same bus which was driven by the petitioner.
9. It is pertinent to note that no medical examination was done in this case to prove that the deceased petitioner was drunk while driving the bus. Based on the deposition of the passengers who travelled in the bus on 23.12.1992 from Kanniyakumari to Madurai in which they have categorically stated that the petitioner was drunk and one person who consumed liquor along with the petitioner has also given an evidence that both were sitting together and
taking liquor. Thus it is proved that the petitioner has consumed liquor before starting the bus from Kanniyakumar to Madurai. The total trip is for 5 days, in the 1st four days, there was no complaint from any passenger and the petitioner has behaved in a good manner and discharged his duties sincerely but on the last 5th day, he has committed this misconduct of taking liquor which is in violation of the rules of the first respondent Corporation. The first respondent Corporation had no other option except to send the tourists to Chennai by Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Bus and that apart, there was a Tirupathi trip which was fixed from Chennai after the petitioner reaches Chennai but that was also cancelled since the bus was haulted at Trichy and this has caused a monetary loss of Rs.10,000/- to the Corporation. The petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition on 14.09.2011.
10. Hence this court is of the considered view that in the Award passed by the 1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.60 of 2000, there is no perversity or illegality and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and the award is hereby confirmed.
11. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed and the first
respondent is directed to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.1,27,272/- to the second and third petitioners (legal heirs of the original petitioner) from the date of dismissal from service to till the date of death of the deceased petitioner as they are entitled as per the rules and regulations of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
16.08.2023 dpq Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
dpq To
1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Walajah Road, Chennai 600 002.
2. The Presiding Officer First Additional Labour Court High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.
16.08.2023