Transport Corporation Which Supported Bus Driver Before MACT Not Precluded From Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings Against Him: Madras HC

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that the MACT did not have jurisdiction to arrive at the liability of the driver and was only concerned with the claim. The court thus opined that if submission before the MACT was to preclude the management from taking disciplinary proceedings, it would be enlarging the scope of the MACT which was beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act.

“The MACT, which has the power of a civil court, is not possess of jurisdiction to give a finding that the driver is not liable so as to interfere with the power of the employer to take action against its employee. If we were to hold so, then we would be enlarging the scope of MACT not only deciding the liability between the victim and the tort-feaser, but also giving it a power to render a finding between the employer and employee. Such a situation is beyond the scope of Motor Vehicles Act,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by a driver working for TNSTC questioning the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him following an accident. The petitioner, Syril Sundararaj submitted that the management had, in its counter filed before the MACT taken a stand that the petitioner had driven the vehicle slowly and carefully. He thus argued that the management was estopped from taking a contrary view. The single judge had referred the matter to the full bench after doubting the view of a division bench.

The petitioner argued that after taking a legal stand, it was not open for the management to initiate disciplinary proceedings. it was argued that as a model litigant, the State Express Transport Corporation should stand by the defence taken before the MACT.

On behalf of the management, it was argued that the counter filed before the MACT could not be treated as an admission by pleadings and was only based on the statements made by the driver to the supervisor. It was submitted that the case was not barred by estoppel.

The court agreed with this submission and held that for estoppel to apply, there must be a representation by one person to another and that representation must have been relied upon by the other party. The court noted that in the present case, there was no representation from the management to the workmen and without such representation, estoppel did not apply.

The court also observed that the counter filed in the MACT proceeding did not give a character of holding out to the driver. The court added that while filing the counter, the party was only attempting to avoid the legal liability that might be fastened on it. The court remarked that since the Transport Corporation dealt with public money, if the officer in charge did not take all possible defences, he could be accused of not taking adequate steps. The court thus remarked that in the litigative world, one could not apply the concept of a model employer.

The court observed that the nature of proceedings before the MACT and the disciplinary proceedings were entirely different and if the employer was satisfied that the conditions for initiation of disciplinary proceedings were available, it was always free to take appropriate action.

“The proceedings between an employer and employee are initiated in terms of the Standing Orders or the Rules which govern the relationship between them. When such proceedings are initiated, by no stretch of imagination, the nature of defence taken in the MACT 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 court said.

The court thus answered the reference accordingly and directed the matter to be placed before the single judge for appropriate orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Koteswara Rao, for Mr.Mohammed Farook

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 146

Case Title: V Syril Sundaraj v The Presiding Officer and Others

Case No: Writ Petition No.39563 of 2004