2021 (3) TMI 1257 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Upholds Employee Reinstatement, Modifies Relief Package: Service Continuity, Pension Entitlement Emphasized

The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai Ltd.,) Versus The Presiding Officer, P. Natchiyappan

The High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision of reinstating the Employee but modified the relief package. The Court granted continuity of service ... Correctness of the award of the Labour Court - Reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that normally a writ court should not interfere with the award of the Labour Court, unless the award is perverse. It has been further held that if the award is not irrational or perverse, the High Court should not interfere with the reasons in the award. Further, it has been held that this Court should not re-appreciate the evidence placed before the Labour Court and substitute its own conclusions, merely because this Court is of the opinion that a different conclusion could have been arrived at on the available evidence. Bearing this legal principle in mind, this Court proceeds to examine the correctness of the impugned award. Admittedly, the Employee worked as a Driver under the Employer Corporation. While he was working, the Employee has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tree standing on the road side, which claimed four lives and caused grievous injuries to 19 persons, which were not disputed. At the same time, in order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the Employee, no witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer - it appears that the Employee got superannuation in the year 2016. Moreover, the Employee was joined as Driver in the year 1995 and the charge memo was issued in the year 1999, and he was dismissed from service in the same year, ie., within a period of four years of his appointment. Hardly the Employee worked only four years in the respondent Corporation and he reached the age of superannuation in the year 2016. This Court is inclined to modify the award of the Labour Court - the order of reinstatement is not possible. However, the Employee is entitled for continuity of service till the date of normal age of superannuation, however, he is not entitled for any backwages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation. Further, the Employee is entitled for continuation of service for the purpose of getting pensionary benefits. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Challenge to order of reinstatement by Labour Court without backwages.2. Examination of evidence to prove negligence of the Employee in a fatal accident.3. Determination of appropriate relief for the Employee.Issue 1: Challenge to order of reinstatement by Labour Court without backwagesThe petitioner, being the Employer, challenged the Labour Court's decision of reinstating the Employee without backwages. The Employer contended that the Employee's negligent driving led to a fatal accident, causing significant loss. The Employer argued that the dismissal was justified based on the findings of the domestic enquiry. The High Court noted the legal principle that interference with a Labour Court's award is not warranted unless it is perverse. The Court emphasized that it should not substitute its conclusions for those of the Labour Court unless the award is irrational or perverse.Issue 2: Examination of evidence to prove negligence of the Employee in a fatal accidentThe Court observed that the Employee, a Driver for the Corporation, was involved in a fatal accident due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in casualties and injuries. However, the Employer failed to produce adequate evidence to establish the Employee's negligence. Only one witness was examined during the enquiry, which was deemed insufficient to prove the Employee's culpability. Despite the seriousness of the incident, the lack of substantial evidence led the Court to uphold the Labour Court's decision of reinstatement.Issue 3: Determination of appropriate relief for the EmployeeConsidering the circumstances, the Court modified the Labour Court's award. The Court decided against reinstatement but granted the Employee continuity of service until the normal age of superannuation. The Court ruled out backwages but directed the Employer to settle terminal and other benefits within twelve weeks. The Employee's entitlement to pensionary benefits was also acknowledged. The Court balanced the severity of the incident with the Employee's service tenure, ultimately providing a modified relief package.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of evidence in establishing negligence and highlighting the need for a balanced approach in determining appropriate relief for the parties involved.