<p class="title">The Madras High Court has said only eye-witnesses can prove charges of rash and negligent driving, without any such witnesses, such charge would not hold good.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Justice K Ravichandrabaabu made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) against the order of a labour court in November, 2013, directing it to pay Rs two lakh as compensation to kin of a driver, who was wrongly terminated by the corporation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Gopal had claimed that the accident was not due to his negligence or rash driving and that the vehicle was not properly maintained by the corporation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, after framing charges, the management conducted a domestic inquiry and terminated the services of Gopal with effect from August 16, 1999. Aggrieved, Gopal moved the labour court challenging his dismissal.</p>.<p class="bodytext">As Gopal died during the pendency of the dispute, the labour court impleaded his wife and children in the case. After considering the fact that in the domestic inquiry, no eye-witnesses were examined to substantiate the charge levelled against Gopal, the labour directed the corporation to pay Rs two lakh as compensation to his kin.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Challenging the same, TNSTC moved the present appeal.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Rejecting the appeal, Justice Ravichandrabaabu said, "Needless to say that the right persons to speak about the accident are the eye-witnesses to the same. Only those persons will be in a position to speak as to whether the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner."</p>.<p class="bodytext">The judge further said admittedly, no such eye-witness was examined in this case, adding the management, while conducting the independent domestic inquiry, is not justified in simply relying on the FIR alone, without examining the eye witnesses.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He said therefore the labour court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of the deceased from the service is not just and proper.</p>
<p class="title">The Madras High Court has said only eye-witnesses can prove charges of rash and negligent driving, without any such witnesses, such charge would not hold good.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Justice K Ravichandrabaabu made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) against the order of a labour court in November, 2013, directing it to pay Rs two lakh as compensation to kin of a driver, who was wrongly terminated by the corporation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Gopal had claimed that the accident was not due to his negligence or rash driving and that the vehicle was not properly maintained by the corporation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, after framing charges, the management conducted a domestic inquiry and terminated the services of Gopal with effect from August 16, 1999. Aggrieved, Gopal moved the labour court challenging his dismissal.</p>.<p class="bodytext">As Gopal died during the pendency of the dispute, the labour court impleaded his wife and children in the case. After considering the fact that in the domestic inquiry, no eye-witnesses were examined to substantiate the charge levelled against Gopal, the labour directed the corporation to pay Rs two lakh as compensation to his kin.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Challenging the same, TNSTC moved the present appeal.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Rejecting the appeal, Justice Ravichandrabaabu said, "Needless to say that the right persons to speak about the accident are the eye-witnesses to the same. Only those persons will be in a position to speak as to whether the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner."</p>.<p class="bodytext">The judge further said admittedly, no such eye-witness was examined in this case, adding the management, while conducting the independent domestic inquiry, is not justified in simply relying on the FIR alone, without examining the eye witnesses.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He said therefore the labour court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of the deceased from the service is not just and proper.</p>