WA/988/2026 of The Management of Tamil Nadu Vs A Raju

2026:MHC:1607 WA No. 988 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL WA No. 988 of 2026 and CMP.No.10186 of 2026 The Management of Tamil Nadu, State Express Transport Corporation Ltd, Villupuram. ..Appellant Vs A.Raju ..Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 03.06.2025 made in WP.No. 8384/2022. For Appellant : Mr.R.Cauveri Selvan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the Writ order dated 03.06.2025 in W.P.No. 8384 of 2022. 2. The writ Petitioner, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Cor poration Ltd., Villupuram is the appellant before this Court. The respondent was working as a Driver in the appellant Corporation. A road accident occurred on 04.02.2013 and he was place under suspension. A charge me mo was issued https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 988 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 mainly on the allegation that he had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, which resulted in death of o ne Mathiyammal, aged about 75 years. Domestic enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry officer’s report holding that the cha rge is held proved, the respondent was removed from service. Challenging the ord er of removal, the workman raised an industrial dispute in ID.No.106 of 2007 a nd the labour Court allowed the industrial dispute with a direction to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service along with back wages. 3. The award came to be challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition. The writ Court mainly found that the appellant Management has not produced any order of approval granted by the competen t Authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That ap art, there was no eye witness to prove negligence on the part of the driver of t he bus/ workman. Since the appellant has failed to produce the approval order obtained from the competent Authority, the writ Court has dismissed the Writ Pe tition. That apart, the writ Court further considered the circumstances u nder which the accident occurred, which was not established beyond any pale of doubt. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the respondent involved in three accidents on earlier occasion. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 988 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 5. The ground raised by the appellant would show that two earlier accidents are minor accidents and subject accident alone is a fatal one. Pertinently the respondent even at the time of filing of t he Writ Petition was aged about 56 years and currently he would be around 60 years and he is at the verge of his retirement. 6. Considering the fact that the appellant failed to produce t he approval order, which is mandatory under Section 33(2)(b) of the I ndustrial Disputes Act and further there was no eye witness to establish neglige nce of the bus driver in the present case, the Writ Petition filed by the M anagement was dismissed. 7. This Court does not find any further reason to interfere with the writ order impugned. Therefore, writ order stands confirmed . Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 24-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DSA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 988 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J. DSA WA No. 988 of 2026 24-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis