High Court · 2025

Md. Yousuf, S/o. Riyasat Ali, Aged about 50 years, Ex-Driver, E.No 280537, C/o. Sri. S.tr/.Subhan, 1-9-2961A11, Vidyanagar, Adikmet Road, Hyderabad - 44. The Presiding Officer (FAC), Labour Court - lll, A.P., Hyderabad. 1 2 ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Articte 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or orders, one in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for the records pertaining to lD No. 3Ol2O14 daled 07.02.201 7 on the file of the Labour Court-lll, A.P., Hyderabad, published in GO Rt. No' 51 2, dated 0'1 -07- 2017 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and to pass l.A. NO: 2OF 2017 (WPMP. NO:350 120F 20171 Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the award passed in lD No. 30/2014 daled 07.02.2017 on the file of the Labour Court-lll A.P., Hyderabad, pendinll disposal of the above writ petition and to pass. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO:3950 OF 20171 Between: It/ld. Yousuf. S/o. R yasat Ali, Aged about 50 years, Ex-Driver E:.No. 280537, C/o. Sri S.M.Subhan,1-9-296IN1, Vidyanagar, Adikmet Road, Hyderabad -44 PETIT IONER/RESPONDENT AND

1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporatior, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Now TSRTC)

2. The Regional l\ilanger, APSRTC., [\/ahabubnagar,'r,4.ahabubnagar District. (Now TSRTC)

3. The Deputy Chref Traffic l\rlanager, APSRTC, [,4a habu btragar, [,4ahabubnagar District. (Now TSRTC)

4. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayanpet Bus Depot, lt4ahabubnagar District.(Now TSRTC)

5. The Presiding Officer (FAC), Labour Court - lll, A P. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirrumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To Vacate the lnterim Suspension orders passed in W.P.lvl.P. No. 35012i2017 in WP No 28177 ot 2O17 , Dl 24-08-2017 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.ANURAG, (SC FOR TSFITC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp 28177 2077 N8K, ] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.28177 of 2017 ORDER: The l" respondent was appointed as Driver in the Road Transport Corporation (RTC) in 1992. On the charge that he was drunk while performing duty on the Bus No.AP-2lZ- 100 Makthat-Hyderabad route, and drove the bus in intoxicated condition, due to which the passengers asked to stop the bus at Mandipally Stage, and they got down and went by another bus, departmental proceedings were initiated against him- 'l'he enquiry off,rcer submittcd a report holding the l'r respondent guilty ol the charges, and the proceedings culminated in removal of the l" respondent from seruice vide Proceedings dated 31.12.2012. The appeal and review petitions filed against the removal order were also rejected. The l" respondent therefore filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) olthe Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court-III, which was numbered as I.D.No.30 of 2014. The Labour Court, by the impugned Award dated 07.02.2017 directed reinstatement of the ['t respondent with continuity of service, but without backwages and attendant benefits. Challenging rhe Award, rhe RTC filed this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. R. Anurag, leamed Standing Counsel fbr the petitioner- RTC; and Mr.S.M.Subhan, leamed counsel fbr the I't respondent, and leamed Government Pleader tbr Labour. Pcrused the record.

3. Learned Standing Counsel, while reiterating the averments as per the writ affidavit, would essentially contend that the evidence of Conductor supported the charges against the l't respondent; that the Assistant Manager (T) had arranged for another driver to operate the bus tbr the remainder 2 rtp 28U1 2Al1 N8K, -I pofiion of the route; that lcasonable opportunity rvas ivcn to dcfi'nd the -r, casc of l'r rcspondent but no evidence was adduced orr hLs bchatf; that the I't respondent was censured earlier on three occasions, and was also removed liom service and the reviewing aulhority re instated lrirn by imposing thc punishment o1- reduction of pay; that the I 'r respondent drove the bus in such an intoxicated condition endangering the Iives ofpasscngers and others on the road; that the explanation submitted h.' t.he l't respondent against the Show Cause notice was not satisfactory anr his lernoval fi'onr service uas.iustified and therefore the impugned Awald passed by the I-abour Court directing his reinstaternent is Iiable to be s:t aside. Leamcd counsel for the l'' respondent-driver wor-rlcl contend that the

4. petitione r has Lou Blood Pressure condition and in the rnoming ol- the day he perlbrrncd duty, he did not take his rnedicincs therebl he t-elt giddincss while driving and therefbre he pulled over the bus to the lt li as he was r.rnable to drivc. It is contended that no passenger was hurt anti the l" rcspondent then took rnedicines and slowly drove the empty bus frorn Mandipally until the tinrc another driver came to drive the bus to the depot rnd alier somctirne he regained consciousness. It is contended that the petitioner-authorities without therc being any proolof intoxication dr subjectingl the petitioner to medical test initiated deparlmental proceedings and r,rnroved him lrom senice, and the Labour Court by observing that the pe rir-ioner-autho rities failed to provc their case directed reinstatement o1'the l" respondcnt and there is no illcgality in the impugned Award.

5. Having considered the respcctive submissions and tte rused the rccord, it. mav bc noted that the Tribunal after duc enquiry b.' appreciating the documentan evidence Ex.M I to M24 adduced by the petitioncr-R-f C. specificallv obselved that petitioner has not even done Br:e.th Analyscr Test I 3 wp 28177 ))rt NBX, I and that the Conductor ol the bus intbrnred the authorities that the l'' rcspondent was unable to drive thc bus, and there was no met-rtion of intoxication of the I't respondent and even the SI'AR document was also closed without recording any reasons. lt has been the consistent case of the I't respondent that he is a I-ow B.P. patient and that he lbrgot to take medicines in the morning of that day (i.e.,29.04.2012) due to which he f'elt giddiness while driving. The Labour Court lurlher observed that no medical test or breath analyzer test was performed to the l" respondent after arriving at the depot, and that the evidence olthe Conductor would only show that the I't rcspondent was unable to drive the bus, and there is no mention in the ev idence of the Conductor that the I " respondent was in a drunken state while driving the bus. This Court does not lind any illegality in the impugned Award directing reinstatemcnt of the 1't respondent.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. o';l //TRUE coPY/', ' S't"iNi'i: A'!F R RX ,rcr(fi orrrcen To,

2. The Presiding Officer (FAC)' Labour Court - lll' A P'' Hyderabad' One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUCI One CC to SRI S M SUBHAN' Advocate [OPUC] Two ccs to Gp FoR LABouR, High court for the state of rerangana [oUT] 4 q Two CD CoPies BSK TKS \qr HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER WP.No.28177 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -l rtF- S,). ,..(,; k 26 fl0t/ m[ * .Spa- CHEO * n j \\ .4t'l I w-. 4\$P