IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.6.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.24583 of 2004 P.Rathinam. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu Division-I) Limited, Chennai-600 002. 2.The General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu Division-I) Limited, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Branch Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu Division-I) Limited, Marthandam. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Ku.No.287/186051/DL2/A.Vi.Po.Ka/02 dated 16.12.2002 and the orders of the second respondent in No.78/81240/DL6/A.Vi.Po.Ka/98 dated 31.5.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mahadevan For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan. ----- O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the order of the first respondent in Ku.No.287/186051/DL2/A.Vi.Po.Ka/02 dated 16.12.2002 and the orders of the second respondent in No.78/81240/DL6/A.Vi.Po.Ka/98 dated 31.5.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts for disposal of the case are as follows:- The writ petitioner was a driver in the respondent transport corporation. On 8.11.1998 at about 4.30 a.m., while he was driving the bus, between Virudhunagar and Sattur, the bus collided with a lorry. In that accident, several passengers were injured and hospitalised and some died. Petitioner claims to have suffered injuries as well. A case was registered against the petitioner and tried as C.C.No.196 of 1999 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of I.P.C. According to the petitioner on 11.7.2002 by the judgment in C.C.No.196 of 1999, petitioner was acquitted of all charges framed against him. Consequent to the accident which happened on 7.11.1998, it is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.11.1998. On 1.12.1998 a show-cause notice was issued. On 16.12.1998, petitioner made a representation. A charge memo dated 6.1.1999 was served on the petitioner. The charges as stated in the dates of events submitted by the counsel for the petitioner are as follows:- "1) On account of over-speeding, negligence, carelessness in driving the bus, the petitioner had caused the accident, 2) On account of the said accident four persons had died and eight persons were injured, 3) The petitioner was responsible for the bad name caused to the Corporation on account of the accident and for the inconvenience caused to the passengers, 4) The petitioner had violated the traffic rules and motor vehicle rules in causing the accident and therefore committed gross misconduct as per the rules of the Corporation." On 24.2.1999 petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. After enquiry, a report dated 27.3.1999 was furnished to the petitioner on 5.4.1999. On 7.5.1999, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the management had accepted the report of the enquiry officer and therefore, called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service for the above proved charges. On 25.5.1999, a detailed explanation was given by the petitioner. However, by order dated 31.5.1999, the disciplinary authority imposed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a punishment of dismissal of service. A representation dated 16.9.2002 was given to the higher authority and it was rejected on 16.12.2002. Challenging the order of dismissal and the order rejecting the representation, present writ petition has been filed. 3. A counter has been filed and the specific stand taken by the respondent transport corporation is that the case of the petitioner falls under the definition of the Industrial Dispute as set out in Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the same reads as follows:- "2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute:- Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union or workmen is a party to the dispute." 4. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) - v. - A.T.Mane reported in (2005)3 Supreme Court Cases 254, (ii) Managing Director – v. - K.Murti reported in 2007(2)SLR 263, (iii) North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation – v. - H.H.Pujar reported in 2008(3) L.L.N. 651. The petitioner's case fall within the parameters of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is an Industrial Dispute. The petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Labour Court to redress his grievance consequent to the order of dismissal. Without exhausting the remedy provided under the statue, petitioner has rushed to this court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. On this premise he prayed for dismissing the writ petition. He pleaded that disputed questions of fact are sought to be raised which should not be allowed. 5. In the enquiry, several witnesses were examined and documents were relied upon by the department. The explanation given by the petitioner were considered on merits and a final order of dismissal has been passed based on a detailed enquiry report. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provisions of Industrial Disputes Act clearly provide a remedy by way of raising an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court. Such a right is granted to the petitioner under the statute. No specific ground has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner as to why, the alternate remedy provided under the statute has been bypassed. The remedy under the statute being an effective remedy, the petitioner has without exhausting such remedy has rushed to this court. On going through the grounds raised in the writ petition except stating that there is a total violation of principles of natural justice, all the contentions raised in the writ petition are questions of fact in dispute and that can be raised before the Labour Court and agitated on merits. In such circumstances this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal bypassing the alternate remedy provided under the statute. No relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. 6. Counsel for the petitioner at this juncture pleaded that he should be permitted to approach the Labour Court. He pleaded that the Labour Court should consider the plea for condonation of delay leniently in view of the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed on 27.8.2004 and admitted on 31.8.2004. If a plea is raised with regard to condonation of delay, it is open to the Labour Court to decide that issue on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu Division-I) Limited, Chennai-600 002. 2.The General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu Division-I) Limited, Chennai-600 002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Branch Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nadu Division-I) Limited, Marthandam. +1 cc to Mr.T.N.Sugesh, Advocate, SR.No.24063 +1 cc to Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, Advocate, SR.No.24134 Order in W.P.No.24583 of 2004 GR {CO} TP/10.7.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/