2026:MHC:1719 WA No. 1016 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WA No. 1016 of 2026 The Management of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Coimbatore DVN. I) Ltd, No.37, Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore-641 043. ..Appellant(s) Vs Senthilkumar ..Respondent(s) Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the Order passed by this Court made in W.P.No.38996 of 2024 dated 02.01.2025 and allow this Writ Appeal. For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondent(s): Ms.G.K.Dharshini JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present intra-court appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated 02.01.2025 in W.P.No.38996 of 2024. 2. Charge memo was issued to the respondent/workmen due to a road accident of a cyclist, which resulted in death of a 12-year-old child. Labour Court considered the documents and evidence, and found that the directions of the cyclist as well as the bus, whether they came from east to west or west to east are altered and changed. Thus, the Labour Court questioned the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1016 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 3 veracity of the charges framed against the respondent/workmen. Since suspicious circumstances were found by the Labour Court, evidence produced by the appellant/ management was reappraised by the Labour Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, Labour Court found that the charge itself was incorrect, and more specifically, appellant management on an earlier occasion accepted the explanation given by the respondent/driver. The management also accepted that the explanation was plausible. The Labour Court found that the explanation was plausible and the management's version was incorrect. 3. The Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of the Labour Court will be implemented within a period of three months. 4. This being the factum, the Writ Court considered the findings of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity warranting interference of the writ court order. Accordingly, the wit appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 28-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1016 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 3 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND K.SURENDER, J. GD WA No. 1016 of 2026 28-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis