9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstitute 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 go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be referred to as 'Employee'. 3. The case of the Employer is that while the Employee was working as Driver under the petitioner Corporation, on 08.05.1999, the Employee has driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN58-No-0011 from Senkottai to Madurai, while the bus nearing Lakshmipuram bridge, due to rash and negligent driving, the Employee dashed against a tree standing on the right side of the road resulting the death of four persons on the spot and 19 passengers sustained injuries. Immediately, the Employer was placed under suspension pending enquiry with effect from 18.05.1999. A charge memo was issued on 19.05.1999 for which the Employee gave his explanation on 04.06.1999. Since the explanation offered by the Employee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, which claimed four lives and caused grievous injuries to 19 persons, which were not disputed and hence the Employee caused huge loss to the Employer. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted and the charges levelled against the Employee were found to be proved and based on the enquiry officer's report, the Employee was removed from service, which is justifiable one. However, the Labour Court, Madurai, without considering these facts, passed the award of reinstatement is not sustainable one. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ petition. 8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Employer and carefully perused the materials placed on record. Despite serving of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the Employ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash 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. On perusal of Ex.M7 and Ex.M8, one Rajendran, Senior Assistant was examined and except him, no one was examined. However, such evidence is not sufficient to prove the negligence of the Employee. So, in the absence of any possible evidence, the award of the Labour Court cannot be interfered with. However, it appears that the Employee got superannuation in the year 2016. Moreover, the Employee was joined as Driver in the year 1995 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
