WA/2468/2026 of The Management of Vs K.Palanisamy on 6 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) This intra-court appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1313 of 2022. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )

WA No. 2468 of 2026

respondent-employee, who was employed as a driver in the appellant Corporation.

2. The brief facts of the case are as below:- The respondent, K.Palanisamy, while working as a driver for the appellant Corporation, was involved in an accident on 13.06.2010 while driving a passenger bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N 2098. Since one person died in the said accident, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent for dereliction of duty. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were found proved and the major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed.

3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the workman raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.90 of 2015 before the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore. The Management defended its action of dismissal, stating that the driver had failed to discharge his duty, caused the death of a two wheeler rider and caused pecuniary loss to the Management.

4. Per contra, the workman contended that in the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Management had taken a plea that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. However, in the departmental enquiry, they framed charges against the driver for negligence and dereliction of duty. The workman argued that the Management could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the facts.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )

WA No. 2468 of 2026

5. Considering these facts, the Labour Court held that the charges against the workman were not proved. However, the Labour Court framed further issue regarding the limitation for raising a dispute under Section 2A(ii) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Having found that the dispute was raised after the expiry of the three-year limitation period, the Labour Court dismissed the petition filed by the workman. The dismissal of the petition is the subject matter of W.P.No.1313 of 2022 before the learned Single Judge. The said writ petition was filed by the workman challenging the findings of the Labour Court, which had dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation. The workman placed all the relevant dates and events before the learned Single Judge to establish that the dispute was raised within time.

6. The learned Single Judge, being convinced that the dispute has been raised within time and not hit by limitation prescribed under Section 2A(ii) of the Act, allowed the writ petition filed by the workman and directed the Management to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The said order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )

WA No. 2468 of 2026

7. The contention of the Management is that a dispute raised belatedly beyond the limitation period ought not to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge. It is further contended that even if the dispute was maintainable, the order of reinstatement with backwages is incorrect, as it allows the delinquent to enjoy the service benefits without being punished for the grave charges of causing accident due to negligence

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the Lower Court tested the major punishment of dismissal from service qua the charges and categorically held that the charges were not proved. The first point for consideration framed by the Labour Court was whether the Management proved the charge of rash and negligent driving levelled against the petitioner. Insofar as this point for consideration is concerned, the Labour Court categorically held that the charge was not proved. The Management has not filed any appeal against these findings.

9. The writ petition was filed by the workman, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition. While so, the learned Single Judge having taking note of the fact that the accident occurred on 03.06.2010, a show-cause notice was issued on 08.07.2010, after a reply was submitted on 22.07.2010 denying the charges there on, a domestic enquiry was conducted, a second show-cause notice was issued on 27.07.2011 and thereafter, the order of dismissal was

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )

WA No. 2468 of 2026

passed on 30.03.2012. An appeal by the workman was subsequently rejected. The Management sought approval of dismissal order as required under Section 33 (2)(b) of the I.D.Act. The cause of action for filing the dispute arose only after the approval was granted. Therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the petition by reckoning the limitation wrongly.

10. The learned Single Judge rightly considered these facts and also the judgment of this Court dealing with cases filing under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, which mandates the Management to get approval for the action of dismissal. The limitation to challenge the dismissal order can be reckoned only from the date of approval, since the actual punishment of dismissal takes effect if the action is approved. If the approval petition is rejected, there cannot be no cause of action for the workman to challenge.

11. Peculiarly in this case though the charge of negligent driving was found to be proved in the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court has taken pains to examine the evidence and held that the charges were not proved. While so, if the charges of negligence are not proved, the consequence is to fail. However, by wrongly reckoning the limitation, the claim had been dismissed, which has been rectified by the Writ Court.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )

WA No. 2468 of 2026

12. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Management submitted that even if the claim petition were to be held within limitation, the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter back for fresh consideration and assessment of punishment for reckless driving instead of ordering reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service, thereby giving a clean chit to the delinquent. We find no merit in the said submission.

13. The reasons to reject the said submission on twofold: firstly, the Management failed to prove the charges before the Labour Court and the Management has not filed any appeal against that finding; secondly, the act of causing fatal accident was not proved to be due to recklessness or rash driving. Consequently, there cannot be any punishment in the nature of dismissal from service.

14. By the time the Labour Court passed an award on 26.02.2020, the workman had already attained superannuation on 04.03.2014. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly considered these facts in a holistic manner and directed the Management to calculate the benefits, taking into consideration continuity of service along with all other attendant benefits from the date of termination till the date of superannuation. The grounds raised by the Management in the intra-court appeal are therefore, not sustainable. Monetary benefits, as directed by the learned Single Judge shall be paid to the respondent within a period of four months from today.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )

WA No. 2468 of 2026

15. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rpl

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )

WA No. 2468 of 2026

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. and E.MANOHARAN J. rpl WA No. 2468 of 2026 and CMP No. 21732 of 2026 06-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 03:29:09 pm )