It is r,r.ell settled that jurisdictron of this Court vs Tribunal. The scope of judicial review is limitcd to examining

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI U.SHANTHI BHUSHAN RA(). SC FOR TGSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. V.PADMA, REP. FOR SMT S.A,V.RATNAM The Court made the following: ORDER /.1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 13897 OF 2016 ORDER: Thc Au,ard datcd 04.06.2015 irr I.D. No. l8 ot 20 11 on thc file ol thc Chairman, lnduslnal 'l'rit;unal cum-Labour Court-cum-VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District (hereinafter rcfcrred lo.1s "thc Tribunal") is zrssailed in this Writ Petition by the Statc-or.r'nccl Corporation

2. By the said Arvard, tl'rc 'lribunal seL asidc the rcmoval order datcd 07.12.2OO7 zrnd ordcrccl rcrnstatemcnt of rhe 2nd respondent as alrcsh Driver. Thc clautn of pctitioner - Corpor:rtion is that Tribunal cxcceded its jtrrisdiction and powerS under Section 1 I -A of the InclustriaI Dispr-ttes Act, 1947 ([or short, 'the Act') and that puuishtncttL tmposcd u,as tlot commensurate n ith the gravity ol miscortduct donc by the 2"d rcspondent.

3. The factual matrix of the <;asc is that thc 2^d respondcnt w'as appointed as a daily rvage driver with effect from 07.08-2000; he was imposed penalties prior to his removal from service, including censurc/wartted two times, annual increments were deferred four timcs. It is alleged, on

09.05.2007, u,hile the 2nd respondent was driving a Super 't { ,i t t, I, ') Luxury bus berring Registration No. AP1 12 37 1:, on lltc rollle Achl:rbacl H-,, rierabacl. at Collcctor Officc X Ro:ri (lltr rvr:rstltir, Aclilabzrcl, hc rlirl rrol lollou tralfic signal anrl jrrr r tccl ]rc stott signal; tritffic police strbscqucntly stoppcd thc lrr r:. Il is l'r-rrtlrr.r allcged that i)irssclts(rs lodged :r complaint ri.rtl trallrc policC and Depot \4i,rrrzrsac,r-. Adilabacl stating that clrrr r.uirs ir-t ,rrr intoxicatecl c,,rtrlition: on examination, ak:ohr,l r. sntcll rras found frorn lrir.t. Iblicc thcrcforc, arrestcd thc .?,, r.c:;gtonclcnr anri infor';rretl t )e I)cJr()t Manager, Adilabad ovcr 1>lrorrr u.lro, in trtrn, lodqt:cl iL t r>nr1rl:rint u,ith ltolice, registerccl rrs (. rrrnt. No. -17 ol )OO7 at 'l'rrrlfic ihlicc Stution, Adilabad, lirr thr. ll-lt:nr.cs uncler Scctions 27c) ancl 510IPC.

3.1 ('otrscclucnllv, lhr, 2r)d respondent u:rs rt'mrtr.,t.rl frorr sen'ict' bl thc' Depot Manage r, Adilabarl rirl-, ltrolccdines ciated O7. 1).)\)O7 , a[tcr holding a domcstic cn(lr:i '\ tirzrt cltrh I, folloq,ccl thc pr irrr:rplcs of natural justicc. Pc(ir jorrt'r. <.rlttcnrls thal chargcs ie Ycllccl against thc 2",i respon(i(.n I u',.'rc hr'l(l provecl be-yol-,cl irnv t-carsonable doubt. Aggrievcd lr " 1111s, 1[6 f orr rcsponclcnt ytrr:f'errccl Appc:al to the Deputl Chtcf 'lrafl'ir: Manager, Adilaltacl, u,hich nas rejected uide pnrr:r:cclrn11s clati:d

20.12.2ooa :rncl revicr,v petition bcfore the RegiLrrr.rl N{anagt:r, Adilabad rr,-as also rejccted uide proceedings da1('( )9.ffi.2OO9. t, n -) Fecling aggrieved by the removal order, thc 2ud resporldent raised LD. No. 18 of 2011 befor<: the Tribunal. A memo under Section ll A oi the Act u,as filcd b-\' the counsel lor Lhc 2"d rcspondcnt statin6l that validit,t' ol domestic enquiry \t i1s not challengecl zind praying only to decide thc quantum of relief. According to the Corporation, by the Arvard impugncd, the Tribunal, r.vhilc holding that charges stood proved, crroneously set asrdc the rcmoval order and moclified the punishment to the eflect that pctitioner is entitled to [)e reinstated as':rlrcsh Driver' and holding that the 2"d respondcnt is not entitled to anl' back u'age s, continuil-v ol service, and attcndant bcnelits

4. Learncd Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao submits that Tribunal failecl to cotrstder that clriver had consciously consumcd liquor while orl duty and, i[ not lor thc vigilant passengcrs, would have endangcred not onlv their Iives but also the live s of pcdestrians and occupants of other vehicles on the road. Such grave misconduct cannot be viewed with any leniency and punishment of rcmoval ought to have bcen confirmed. It is also argued that Tribunal ought to have considered that disciplinary action was taken as a preventrve measure and to ensure public safety and discipline. Learned Standing Counsel further argues that impugned Award { .A t I I, \\':1s l)assc(l on 04.06.2015 ancl publishcd on ill.(t7.2Lt 15. Thc file s'rrs circrrlrrcd from thc Rcgional Oftlce, Adilal lrcl [)istrrct, to thr' Hc:rrl ()lliCr'. Thc clelar. is :tttributed to biftr'r alir,rt rif the Corporatiori rr:rcl othcr :rdministratrr.e reasons, lrn,l it is ltlcacled Lhat thr-' dt:lal r; neithcr willlul, r",anlon, nor delibt,nrtr:.

5. []r' ordcr datcd ').2.O4.2O16, this (lor-u t, n'hile issuir.rg nllc ni-si, irt vier,i of thc lar:t that the 2',d rc;l>ortrle nt filcd :r Mcmo rrnrlcr Section 11-A ol' lhe Act stating lltilt It(' is not chaJlengirrg thc validirr. of the domestic enquirl r',rrrrlLrr:ted by thc Corl;or;rtion, thouqh lcarncd counsel stattj j thirr. u,ages uncler Sct:tion I 7 R of the Ac:t carr bc granted, obsr r-vccl thzit this is not :r flt cirs;c r,r'herc the 2,,,1 respondent is cr rritlccl for the szrme . IIe ncr', :tking into considcration the far.r thert scveral deaths havt' lirl:en place duc to drunken driving;r'rrl tltt Courts cannot forg('r llrat fact, grantcd intcrim stay of Arl : r.l irnpugned.

6. 'i lropg|1 number ol:rcljournments \\.cr-(' grirrrtr-.d, thc 2",1 rcsponclcnl ltas noL corne lclr-ward countering t lt,.' allcgatior-rs of Corporzrtion. Heard Ms. V. Padma, lear nccl counsel represenling Srnt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned courrs-:] for the 2"a respondent. 7 . I Jar.ing perused thc matcrial on recorC anrl having hcard lcat'ncrl Standing Counscl for Corporation, t he pleadings ) of the parties reveal that there is no disputc as to the misconduct of the 2"d respondent; both the domestic enquiry and thc Tribunal have concurrently found that charges against thc 2ud responclent stood proved. The only point for consideration is proportionality of the punishmenL imposed- While pctitioncr argues that punishme nt of rcmoval w,as .justified and Tribunal erred in modifying it, the 2nd respondent contends thal modification was within the Tribunal's powers and u'as a just and equitable relief.

8. It is r,r.ell settled that jurisdictron of this Court under Article 226 of Lhe Cons[itution is one of judicial revier.vs and thc Court r.,'ill not sit in Appeal over the findings of thc Tribunal. The scope of judicial review is limitcd to examining u.he[her t]re Tribunal's order is perverse, arbitrary or in viol:rtion of any sLatutory provision or principles of natural justice. [r'r the present case, the Tribunal's finding that charges against r.r,orkman stood proved has not been challenged. In fact, rcspondent's counsel, as per the pleadings, filed a mcmo to that effect before the Tribunal. The only issue is proportionality of the punishment and the Tribunal's modification thereof. The I{on'ble Supreme Court, in numerous judgments, including the landmark case of Hombe Goutda Educational Trust us. Stdte t t t, 6 of Karnato;ka (2006) 7 SCC 229, had clarified ihe scope and ambrt of the porvcrs of lhe Labour Courl under S( rction 1 I A tt has becn htlci Lhat power to interlerc u'ith the 1'l nisllmcnl is discretionan' :rt-rcl musL be exercised judici:rlly 'lhe punistrment shoulcl be ir terft:red with only u'hcn it is shockingll' disproportio rr a t c to the gravity of the misconduct lt is thc duty of the l-abor rr Cour'. to considcr the nature ol tl re misconduct and its impacl on the Public g. In the prcsent case , the misconduct comtnitted by the 2'd rcspotrdet-rt is gravc it.t naturc, a drtr-r 'r of a public transport vehicle, u'ho has been entrusled u'jt.r thr: lives of numerous pitsscngcrs, rt'as founcl to be in a clrtllll:en conditior-r u,hile on (lLlt\ . Pctitiolle r Corporalior-r rightll-' p lints oul that such an act is a scrious misconduct ri'hich endangers not only thc livcs o[ lritsscngers in the bus but a]so t[-r'' livcs of ro:rd users. It is rrtt acl of gross negligencc that tal'nish 3:; thc image ol the Corporiltlc,I] and violatcs thc trust placed in lhe employee t, The discip[n:rry authority imposed the punishrr:nt of removal from service aftcr consiclering the gravity of the nliscottduct ancl the previous rccord of the u'orkman, which was lLcl a clean one' However, takitrg into consideration the service prlt in bv the 2nd rcspondent irL the Corporation and the fact tir:rt he did not l I . l, t:t f I I: l I 7 calrse anv accident, the Tribunal, ir-r its wisclom. chose to provide some relief to the u,orkman and directed his rcinstatemcnt as afresh driver. 'l'his Court also taking into t ilccounL the long slanding clisputc and the ordcr of sLay grantcd lrv this Court, during which time, the 2nd rcspondent is out of cmplovmcr-rt, SO AS to balance the interests of the r.r,orkman, deems it appropriate to direct the Corporation to appoint the 2,d rcspondent in ernl-suitable posL but nol as driver It) Tl-rc Writ l)ctition is accordingly, disposcd of dirccting pctitioner Corporation lo reinstate the 2"d respondcnt into scrvice not as a drivcr, but into any other suitable post Hou,ever, il is madc clcar, hc is not cntitlcd to any back lr,ages, continuity of service and atLendant benefits 1t Consequentll,, t1'rc misccllaneous Applications, if an1, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// -/ SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secrrkrrcea ,/ To,

1. The chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court-cum vl Addl. District and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District'

2. The Depot lVlanager, TGSRTC, Adilabad Depot, Adilabad District 3. One CC to SIvIT S.A.V.RATNAM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI U.SHANTHI BHUSHAN RAO, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies BSR fUl\ilT -.:-== =e::":1a_:,-;:-.:r1.-iaa.-_*j:-Er.iaj=q=E HIGH COURT DATED: 1910812025 \ t ORDER WP.No.13897 of 2016 6 {$E sTA 1 4 ) ) 9 \ * 25 r,l0lJ Mi ?:16 SP I cl'6 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS q .K .il \