The prayer in the writ petition is for a Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned award dated 28.01.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent in ID No.130/2007 and to quash the same.
2. The 1st respondent is a Driver, who was working at the petitioner Corporation. While he was driving the petitioner Corporation Bus on 25.04.2003, the bus met with an accident, as the said bus hit a stationed lorry at the backside, in which, one person died and five were injured. Pursuant to which, the first respondent was suspended on 28.04.2003. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued, domestic enquiry was conducted. After completing the domestic enquiry, the first respondent was dismissed from service on 09.03.2004. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the first respondent raised Industrial Dispute in ID No.130/2007 before the 2nd respondent and the said ID was finally concluded on 28.01.2010, where an award was passed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court directing the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service, however, without any backwages. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed by the Transport Corporation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
4. The finding of the labour Court has been perused by this Court, wherein, at paragraph 7 of the impugned award, the labout Court has stated that the lorry was parked, though at the left side of the road, a portion of lorry has been parked towards the road and there was no burning of parking lamp at the rear side of the lorry. Since the time of accident was late hours in the night, there was heavy dark and even according to the Management witness, lot of plants are on the reverse side, on the said portion of the lorry, which was parked and therefore, there is no distinct identity to show that a lorry has been stationed there. In view of the said witness, even on behalf of the Management, the labour Court has found that the first respondent alone is not responsible for the accident and therefore, the labour Court has come to the conclusion that the first respondent would be entitled to get reinstatement. Though the labour Court has permitted the first respondent to get reinstated, very carefully, the labour Court has rejected the claim of the first respondent for backwages.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 30.06.2011, this Court directed the petitioner to pay 17(B) wages to the first respondent including arrears.
6. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, it is informed by the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the first respondent is getting the 17(B) wages. For all the five years during the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent, without rendering any service to the petitioner Corporation is getting minimum salary by way of 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These aspects have not been considered by the petitioner Corporation in number of cases of similar nature. This Court in earlier occasion has given its view and expressed its agony that the Transport Corporations like the petitioner, since are already running under loss are paying huge amount either towards backwages or by way of 17(B) wages to its employees, however, without extracting any work from them. These loss caused to the Transport Corporation undertakings of the Government has to be avoided and in this regard, the time has come to take a policy decision by all the Transport Corporations of the State Government, where a decision can be taken and yardstick can be prescribed, by which, wherever cases of this nature comes, where the liability of negligence is not solely on the part of the erring employee, like driver, such a maximum punishment of dismissal, removal from service is avoided, instead, any other punishments including penalty may be imposed on the erring employees, so that, this kind of unnecessary loss being caused to the Transport corporation can be avoided.
7. This case is also one of such case, where the maximum punishment of removal from service should not have been inflicted on the first respondent, that is the reason why the 2nd respondent labour Court has rightly held in the impugned award that the first respondent would be entitled to get reinstated with continuity of service. Even though for the non working period, the labour Court has declined to give backwages to the first respondent, by virtue of pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner Corporation has been paying 17(B) wages to the first respondent and this kind of situation can very well be avoided, then and there, by deciding the cases by taking a policy decision at appropriate level at the Management of the Transport Corporation like the petitioner themselves.
8. In view of the findings given by the 2nd respondent labour Court, this Court finds that there is no plausible reason available to interfere with the said impugned award and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.
.