“In a litigative world, one cannot apply the concept of model employer,” the Madras High Court has said and held that a State Transport Corporation is entitled to take disciplinary action against its driver for having caused a road accident despite taking a completely contrary stand before a motor accident claims tribunal.
A Full Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan ruled so, while answering a reference made in a writ petition pending in the High Court since 2004, against the termination of service of a T.N. State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) driver.
The writ petitioner V. Syril Sundararaj was driving an SETC bus from Tiruchi to Nagercoil in 1992, when it collided with a goods van, proceeding from Tiruchendur to Coimbatore, near Virudhunagar leading to the death of five persons and injuries to five others, including the petitioner.
When the victims approached the motor accident claims tribunal for compensation, SETC contended that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the goods van driver and therefore the corporation was not entitled to pay any compensation to the claimants.
However, it also initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner for the charge of rash and negligent driving and terminated his service. Though the petitioner approached the Labour Court in 2000 challenging the punishment, his plea was rejected in 2003 and therefore, the present writ petition.
When Justice S. Nagamuthu (since retired) heard the matter on March 29, 2012, the petitioner’s counsel relied upon a 2008 Division Bench judgement in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation versus S. Karuppasamy’s case to contend that the employer could not be allowed to take such contrary stands.
Not in agreement with the Division Bench verdict, the single judge had referred the matter to a larger bench to decide as to whether a transport corporation could take disciplinary action against its driver despite having claimed before a motor accident claims tribunal that he was not responsible for the accident.
Accordingly, authoring the verdict for the Full Bench, Justice Lakshminarayanan said, the transport corporation faces the case before a motor accident claims tribunal only for the purpose of avoiding liablity as a tortfeaser whereas it was entitled to take disciplinary action against its employees under the service rules.
“When such proceedings are initiated, by no stretch of imagination, the nature of defence taken before the tribunal can be telescoped into the other. If an employer is satisfied that the conditions for initiation of disciplinary proceedings are available, it is always free to do so,” the Full Bench ruled.
It also stated that a transport corporation files a counter affidavit before the motor accident claims tribunal only on the basis of information provided to it by its driver regarding the accident and therefore such a stand could not become a reason for the driver to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel.
