2 The Sr.Manager (Operation), A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur v. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR W.P.No.23427 of 1999 Between: Palle Yellamanda, S/o. China Sundaraiah, A.P.S.R.T.C., Pidugurala, R/o. Pidugurala, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vinukonda, Guntur District. 3 The Senior Manager (Operations), A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to Award in I.D.No. 68/95 dt.9-2-99 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same in so far as it relates to denial of back wages. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER : As these two writ petitions are filed against the Award dated 9th February 1999, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.68 of 1995, they are disposed of together by this common order. Parties are referred to as arrayed in writ petition No.16955 of 1999.

2. The 1st respondent-workman was working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at its Depot at Vinukonda in Guntur District. On 20th May 1994, while he was driving the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-5294 from Vinukonda to Tirupathi, he caused an accident by dashing the bus against a Truck coming in the opposite direction. In the said accident, one person had died and about ten passengers, the Conductor of the bus and the Ticket Inspector also sustained injuries. There was a huge damage to the bus and the said accident resulted in payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and also to those who suffered injuries.

3. Subsequently, on the ground that the 1st respondent- workman has caused the accident by his negligent driving, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was also removed from service. The Departmental appeal filed by him has also ended in dismissal. Against the orders of removal as confirmed by the appellate authority, the 1st respondent-workman has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.68 of 1995 by filing a claim petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said claim petition is allowed by the Labour Court mainly on the ground that the 1st respondent was acquitted in the criminal proceedings on a charge framed for the alleged offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., and also on the ground that the inquiry report was not furnished to the worman.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-workman.

5. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the workman without recording any valid reasons. It is submitted that mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings by itself is not a ground to reinstate the workman into service. It is further submitted that the workman did not show any prejudice alleged to have been caused to him on account of non-supply of the inquiry report. On the other hand, is argued by Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-workman that as much as the charge framed in the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings is on the same set of facts, and in view of the acquittal recorded by the Criminal Court, the Labour Court ought to have granted backwages to the workman while ordering his reinstatement. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat . [1]

6. A perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court discloses that reinstatement was ordered solely relying on the acquittal recorded by the trial Court in the Criminal Proceedings. As decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred above, the Labour Court did not examine the nature of charges and the evidence and material on record in both the proceedings. Simply because a Criminal Court has acquitted, reinstatement cannot follow in all cases as an automatic consequence, but however, in this case, it is stated that pursuant to the Tribunal’s award, during the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent-workman was already reinstated and he has retired from service and the substantial portion of his retiral benefits was also paid to him. In the normal course, the matter could have been referred to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, but taking into account the fact that the workman has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. Further, though in the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent, it was argued by the learned counsel Sri M.Panduranga Reddy that the Labour Court ought to have awarded backwages also, but the copy of the judgment passed by the Criminal Court is not placed on record so as to examine whether the nature of charges and evidence led in the criminal proceedings as well as in the departmental proceedings are same. In the absence of such a copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court, it is not possible for this Court to record any finding on it. In any case, in all the cases where reinstatement is ordered, backwages cannot be awarded automatically. It is also to be noted that on account of the negligent driving by the 1st respondent- workman, the accident has occurred and the same has resulted in payment of huge amount of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and also to those who have injured in the said accident. As such, it is not a fit case to order for payment of any backwages.

7. For these reasons, I do not find any illegality in the Award passed by the Labour Court. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th January 2009. [1] (2006) 5 SCC 446