APSRTC v. The Presiding Officer

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. SA Razack The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by an award made in I.D.No.15 of 1998 dated 11.11.1998 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the Management and 2nd respondent is the workman (since died) and his LRs were brought on record. It appears that 2nd respondent was driving the Bus bearing No.AP-9Z-7210 on special hire on 14th September, 1995 carrying Intermediate Examination papers Hyderabad to Chittoor. At about 6.30 a.m when the bus was crossing Inamadugu X road, a cyclist who was crossing the road from left to right side of the road was hit by the bus and received serious injuries and later succumbed to the same. In that connection, the police registered a case in Crime No.91 of 1995 under Section 304-A IPC. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent was also proceeded with departmentally and was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges.

1.For having caused fatal accident by hitting to a cyclist by name Sri K.Subbaiah, aged 52 years, of Kovvur while you were driving AP-9Z-7210 (Special hire bus carrying intermediate papers) on 14.9.1995 at about 6.30 hours near Inamadugu X roads on Hyderabad-Nellore route resulting in the death of the cyclist which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix) (a & b) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.

2.For having driven the bus No.AP-9Z-7210 (Special hire) in a negligent manner and lack of anticipation on 14.9.1995 Hyderabad-Nellore route resulting in the death of cyclist near Inamadugu X Roads at about 6.30 hours which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(ix) (a&b), (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees conduct Reg.1963”. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the same, 2nd respondent was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). It was his case that there was no negligence on his part and it was purely due to the negligence on the part of the cyclist that the accident had occurred. Further, the petitioner Management has not conducted the enquiry properly and there was no evidence to hold him guilty of the charges. Even assuming that there is some misconduct on his part, there was no necessity for passing order of removal from service which disproportionate. The petitioner-Management filed a detailed counter before the labour court denying the allegations made by the 2nd respondent. On behalf of the petitioner-Management though no oral evidence was let in, Exs.M1 to M18 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-workman, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in. After going through the entire material placed before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Management is valid. However, it has held that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved and in fact, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the evidence on record and absolutely there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the respondent-workman. Therefore, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of 2nd respondent with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with full back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court on mere assumptions and presumptions has come to the conclusion that absolutely there was no evidence to prove that the respondent- workman was negligent as he could not anticipate the accident. The conclusions reached by the Labour Court that since there was no skid marks on the road, it must be deemed that the bus was going in a very reasonable speed and the workman was not negligent in driving the bus cannot be countenanced. Even assuming that the charges are not proved, the awarding of back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case are unwarranted. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the award passed by the Labour Court and further stated that this is a case where absolutely there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. This is a case where two constables travelling in the bus have categorically stated that the cyclist was in a drunken condition and further he was carrying some liquor cans with him and in fact the bus was going on the left side of the road and the cyclist having lost balance in drunken condition fell under the bus. Under those circumstances, the labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that absolutely there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. In fact, though the bus is supposed go with a reasonable speed for the purpose of supplying examination papers, the evidence shows that the bus was going in a very very reasonable speed. The Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of the case directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages etc. I am of the opinion that Labour Court has not committed any error either on facts or law. Therefore, the award passed by the labour Court does not call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________ 20-02-2008 // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad. 2 Shaik Akbar, S/o. Shaik Ismail, E.No.22370, 15133, P&T Colony, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad. 3. 2 CCS to GP for Labour