High Court · 2012

This Court by order dated 2.12.2003 admitted the writ petition and staye

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court was not at all justified in directing reinstatement of the workman with full back wages . She submits that there were no materials before the Labour Court to arrive at such a finding. She further submits that the factum of the accident is not disp uted. The impact of the accident was such that it caused injuries to all the pas sengers travelling in the bus out of whom one expired, besides causing extensive damage to the bus. She submits that the accident speaks for itself and in suppo rt of her submissions, refers to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of No rth-East KRTC Vs. Devidas Manikrao Sadananda reported in (2006) 8 SCC 52.

13. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered.

14. The fact that the accident had taken place is not disputed. It is also n ot disputed that the workman was driving the bus. The impact of the accident was so severe that it caused injury to all the passengers out of whom six had to be hospitalised. The nature of the injuries suffered by the injured passengers, in cluding the one who expired, were such which clearly indicated that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. In the course of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was afforde 15. d all reasonable opportunity to defend himself and at the conclusion of the depa rtmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the w orkman was responsible for the accident because of his rash and negligent drivin g and therefore held that the charges against the workman stood proved.

16. The Labour Court while deciding the reference held as follows:- (cid:28)Answering issue No.1 I would agree the accident occurred in an unavoidable cir cumstances. The driver while started to pass the stationary truck did not see th e V.I.P. convoy. The driver could not be faulted for puncture of the left front tyre of the bus. While he moved forward to pass the truck he saw the V.I.P. conv oy coming from the opposite direction in excessive speed. Had he not moved the b us to the left a serious collision with the V.I.P. convoy would have taken place . The result would have been very very disastrous. The driver instantly opted fo r the lesser evil . At the time the driver was between the scylla and the charyb dis. The management in relating the scene immediately before the accident in E xt. 4. Statement of allegations against the driver, inter alia , stated, (cid:28)sudde nly one VIP car was coming from opposite direction in a very high speed & & & &. (cid:29) In the premises it could not be held that the bus was driven rash and negligen tly. An experienced and prudent driver would not have acted differently. The iss ue is answered against the management. In answering issue No.2 it is stated that the driver Shri Firoz Ahmed has an unblemished service record. Without specific evidence to the contrary it is to be held that he drives vehicles responsibly. There is nothing on record to show that he is guilty for the accident. The issue is answered against the mana gement. On answering issue no.3 it is submitted that wrong and improper parking of the coal loading truck should have been taken into account while fixing respo nsibility upon the driver Firoz Ahmed. But the management did not consider that aspect for the accident as borne out from the record of the domestic enquiry sub mitted in this Court. Traffic rules and regulations are bound to be obeyed by al l motorists including V.I.P. car. If the VIP cars are driven in breach of the ru les and regulations because of the enormous powers of the authority it would be apposite to observe following Biblical saying, (cid:28)If salt loses its savour where i t is to be salted. (cid:29) The issue is answered against the management. In answering issue No.4 it is opined that the driver Firoz Ahmed is ent itled to be reinstated forthwith with full back wages and all other benefits fr om 5.11.98. The punishment inflicted by the management on him must be negati ved. (cid:29) The findings of the Labour Court that it could not be held that the bus 17. was driven in a rash and negligent manner and that an experienced and prudent dr iver would not have acted differently were made without any basis. There was no evidence on record to enable the Labour Court to take such a view. The Court is therefore unable to agree with the findings recorded by the Labour Court.

18. The Apex Court in the case of North-East KRTC (supra) held that in cer tain cases , the accident speaks for itself. In such cases the management is onl y to prove the accident and nothing more and that the driver has to establish th at the accident happened due to causes other than his negligence. Once the maxim res ipsa loquitur is found to be applicable , the burden of proof would shift o n the delinquent. In such cases, the nature of impact has to be seen because it indicates that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently.

19. The present case is also one such case where the maxim res ipsa loquit ur is applicable. In this case, the nature of impact was such that it caused dam age not only to the left front portion of the bus but also resulted in injuries to almost all the passengers of the bus out of which one expired.

20. In such circumstances, the decision of the labour Court directing reinst atement of the workman is not justified. The same is therefore, interfered with and set aside. However there will be no order as to costs.