1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1307 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Vs. 1.S.N.Kaliyaperumal ... Respondent-1/Petitioner 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. ... Respondent-2/Respondent-1 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25.11.2010, made in W.P.(MD) No.217/2009. Prayer in WP(MD).217/2009 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the award dated 02.07.2008 passed by the first respondent in ID.No.152/02, quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service in suitable alternative employment with continuity of service backwages and all other attendant benefits. For Appellant : Mr.S.Baskaran For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Arunachalam JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellant, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., has preferred this writ appeal challenging the order of the writ court, dated 25.11.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.217 of 2009, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein and directing the appellant herein to restore the 1st respondent, namely the writ petitioner, in service with an alternative employment and further directing the the appellant to refer the case of the respondent No.1 to Medical Board, within a period of four weeks and after ascertaining the degree of his disability, he must be provided with a suitable alternative employment, protecting his status and emoluments. The writ court also observed that the respondent No.1 is entitled to get wages till the date of restoration in service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation would submit that the writ court has not considered the fact that the respondent No.1 was frequently absenting himself in attending his duties, as he was working as a Conductor under the appellant Transport Corporation. It is further contended that the Labour Court passed the award only after considering the evidence adduced by the appellant and upheld the dismissal of the respondent No.1, namely the writ petitioner. It is also contended that the respondent No.1 has not produced any proper medical records to substantiate his claim that he was not unauthorisedly absent and on the other hand, due to the accident and injuries sustained by him, he was not able to attend duty. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation lastly submitted that appellant is willing to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service, without payment of any backwages. 3.Mr.S.Arunachalam, learned counsel, who has taken notice on behalf of respondent No.1 at this stage, would contend that absolutely no ground is made out in the writ appeal warranting interference by this Court in the order of the writ court. It is contended that the respondent No.1 was not absent unauthorisedly but, on the other hand, he has made representations continuously expressing his inability to attend duty and to pursue his usual work only due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident. It is pointed out that the writ court has taken note of all these factors and rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1. 4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record, including the order of the writ court as well as the order of the Labour Court. 5.The undisputed fact remains that the respondent No.1, namely the writ petitioner, met with an accident and sustained serious injuries, as a result of which he was not able to attend his duties, as he was working as a Conductor under the appellant Corporation. Is is pertinent to note that the appellant has not, inspite of the claim made by the respondent No.1 herein, referred the 1st respondent for Medical Board in order to ascertain his physical fitness and the alleged disability to pursue his work as a Conductor. The writ court has clearly pointed out this serious lapse on the part of the appellant also followed the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex in the decision in Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 578 and held that the principle laid down in the above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and on that basis directed the appellant to restore the services of the respondent No.1 with an alternative employment. The Writ Court has also given protection to the appellant herein by directing the appellant to refer the case of the respondent No.1 to a Medical Board, within a period of four weeks and after ascertaining the degree of his disability, provide him a suitable alternative employment, protecting his status and employment and also observed that the respondent No.1 is entitled to get wages till his restoration in service. Therefore, there may not be any genuine grievance for the appellant in this matter and we are unable to see any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ court warranting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 interference of this Court. 6.Accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TO 1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Ltd, Kumbakonam 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. Gb GH : 25.11.2011 : 3p/3c Judgment IN W.A.(MD)No.1307/2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 Dated:17.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/