High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate wril, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated '17-08-2006 made in t.D.No.60/2004 Addl. tndustrial rribunal cum Addt. Labour court, Hyderabad pubrished on r5-1 1-2006 in G.o.Rt.No.21sB, dated 18-,l0-2006 directing the petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service andother benefits except back wages and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. l.A. NO: 1OF 2007(WPMP. NO:1 4s61 0F 2007) Petition 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 order stay of execution of award dated 17-0g-2006 made in l.D.No60/2004 Addl. lndustrial rribunal-cum-Addl. Labour court, Hyderabad published on 1 5-1 1-2006 in G.o.Rt.No.2158 dated 18-10-2006 except in regard to rl nstatement pending disposal of the writ Petition. CounselforthePetitioner:SRIN.SRUSHMANREDDY,SCFCRTGSRTC Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: SRI S.PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No'2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER i ! a : i i I : (-i (j ORDER 1 U E A w T o N 1 2 F o This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "To issue a certiorari catling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 17'08'2006 made in I.D.NI.6O/2004 by the Additionat Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Coutt, Hyderabad' published on 15.11.2006 in G.O'Rt'No'2158 dated 18'10'2006' direding the petitioner to reinstate the 7't respondent into service with continuity of service and other benefits except back wages, and quash the same as being bad' itlegal' without jurisdiction, a nd inva lid "'

2. Heard Sri N' Srushman Reddy' learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the petitioner' Sri S' Pradeep Kumar' learned counsel appearing for respondent No'1' and learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for respondent No'2' Perused the material on reco rd . 3 Brief Facts of the Case: (i) The 1't respondent was initially appointed as a casual driver in the Petitioner-CorPoration on 27.O5.lggg and his services were regularized with effect from 01'08'2000' While performing his duties' on l4.Ol.2OO4, he was involved in a Fatal road accident near Gumpula 2 Village, Suryapet at around 9:30 a.m., while driving ius No.Ap11Z 113 on the Vijayawada-Hyderabad route. The accident involved an auto- rickshaw bearing No. AP21V265, in which one passen 3er died and three others sustained serious injuries. A criminal case we s registered under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. (ii) A charge sheet dated ZO.OZ.2OO4 issued to the 1't respondent, framing the following charges: (a) "For having caused Fatal accident while driving the Vehicle NI.API1Z113 Metro Express Bus crming from Vijayawada to Hyderabad resulted in 3 Autc passengers seriously injured and one Auto passene er named Sri Bullaka Buchatah aged 50 years died on :he way to Hospital, Hyderabad on 14.01.04 at about 0!:30 hrs at Gumpula village near Suryapet which constitutes misconduct under Reg.2g(ix)(a) AqSRTC'CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963." (b) "For having driven the Vehicte No.Ap11,7_ 113 Metro Express in a rash and negligent manner wrt rout taking precautionary measures and lack of anticipatior, resulted in serious injuries to 3 Auto passengers and deatt of an Auto passenger on 14.01.04 at about 09:30 hotr,s which is misconduct in terms of Regulation 29(ix)(a) of ApSRTC (CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963. " (c) "For having tarnished the image of A?SRT( by causing the Fatal accident which is mis-conduct tr terms of Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC (CONDUC'|) Regulations' 1963." (iii) The 1s respondent submitted his explanation' which was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. Witnesses were examined in his presence' and the 1't respondent was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine' He expressed satisfaction with the enquiry process' The Enquiry Officer found all the charges Proved. (iv) Based on the report and after considering the explanation submitted by the lst respondent, the disciplinary authority passed final orders removing him from service by order dated 07'07'2004' (v) Aggrieved by the removal, the 1't respondent raised an industrialdisputeunderSection2-A(2)ofthelndustrialDisputesAct, 1947, which was registered as I'D'No'60 of 2004' The Labour Court' by Award dated 17'08'2006, while accepting that the accident occurred due to the 1st respondent's failure to take precautions despite sufficient road space, nonetheless held that there was contributory negligence on tfle part of the auto-rickshaw driver' It therefore directed reinstaternent of the 1't respondent with continuity of service and all other atteMant benefits, excluding back wages 4

4. Learned standing counsel for the petitioner sut.its that the Labour Court erred in holding that the accidert was not solely due to the negligence of the 1't respondent and in attributing corr ributory negligence to the auto driver. It is contended that the 1tt resporr 1ent, being the bus driver, failed to exercise due caution, which was a frr imary cause of the accident. Despite such findings, the Labour court dir::ted reinstatement, which is impermissible

5. Learned standing counsel for the petitioner 'r rther submits that pursuant to the Award dated 17.0g.2006, the I r respondent was reinstated and posted to Mushirabad Depot by orde- dated 11.12.2006, but the corporation has not implemented the ri rections regarding continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, : (cept back wages.

6. Learned counser appearing for the 1rt respondr: rt submits that the Labour Court rightly passed the impugned Award and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

7. The Labour Court, in its Award dated 17.08. t006, observed as follows: "The scooterist and auto driver took a sud len decision to avoid an accident and at that juncture, i he accident occurred. But removal of the petitioner is absctt ttely on the higher side in the present case. lJnder these ctr:umstances, it is a fit case to exereisediscretion to interl re with the 5 e order of does not extrefie punishment of removal from service' Th removal passed by the disciplinary authority disclose any Nst misconduct on the part of the Wtltioner. attending Moreover, they have not considered the circumstances of the present case' There is contribution on the part of the scooterist in causing this accident and it is not solety clue to the negligence of the petitioner' The petitioner has been in service since 1999' Keeping in view all the circumstances and in pursuance of Exs.M.l7 to M'22 and Ex'W' the Labour Court is inclined to set aside the removal order dated 07'07'2004 and direct reinstatementwithcontinuityofserviceandallother attendant benefits except back wages'" 1 \

8. The Labour Court considered the circumstances of the accident and rightly observed that the incident was not entirely due to the fault of the rrt respondent arone. The sudden decision of the scooterist and auto driver also contributed to the accident' In that context' the Labour court herd that the punishment of removar was excessive' Though the Labour Court did not exonerate the 1't respondent 9 driver, he ought to have taken entirelY, it observed that as a additional Precautions' However , taking into account his long years of service, lack of past misconduct' and the contributorY negligence of others involved in the accident, the Labour Court exercised its discretion to modify the Punishment' 6

10. This Court finds no reason to interfere with :he Labour Court,s discretion. The reinstatement has already been ef ected, though the direction regarding continuity of service and othil benefits remains unimplemented, pending this Writ petition.

11. In view of the above observations, this Court i:; of the opinion that the Labour Court rightly passed the impugned Awarc dated 17.08.2006 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1.t reso rndent into service with continuity of service with all other beneflts, {-'icept back wages. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the lr vard passed by the Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismi:;: :ed. L2- Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Ther: shail be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendir g, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE GOPY// SD/ P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO( OFFICER One CC to SRI S.PRADEEP KUMAR, Advocate [OPUIJ One CC to SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGSi IC [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies : : To, 1 2 3 4 BSR TKS al- HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 I ORDER WP.No.11720 ot 2007 L \ .J lliE s j q ) * t a TCPA :::-: ofc: -a2 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS G) D+- ez\J'6