THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2250 of 2003 ORDER: Sri G.Bhaskar, husband of the 2nd respondent, father of respondents 3 and 4 and son of respondents 5 and 6, was employed as a Driver in the Nagarkurnool Depot of APSRTC. On 19.06.1998, a bus, being driven by him, collided with a lorry. The lorry driver is said to have paid Rs.2,500/-, towards expenditure for repair of the bus. Alleging that Bhaskar did not remit the amount of Rs.2,500/-, a charge sheet was issued on 14.08.1998. He submitted an explanation stating that the driver of the lorry paid a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on the date of accident, and the balance of Rs.1,500/-, 18 days thereafter, and both the amounts were remitted without any delay. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd petitioner appointed an Enquiry Officer and ordered domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that the charges are proved. Through order, dated 27.04.1999, the 2nd petitioner removed the driver from service. Shortly, thereafter, Bhaskar died on 12.09.2000. His legal representatives i.e. respondents 2 to 6, filed I.D.No.86 of 2001 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 06.09.2002, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed that the legal representatives shall be paid salary for the period between 27.04.1999 and 12.09.2000, and granted the relief of continuity of service, apart from directing the petitioners to provide alternative employment in terms of the relevant rules. The petitioners challenge the said award. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6. The charges framed against the driver are to the effect that though he deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- instantly, he committed delay of 18 days in depositing the balance of Rs.1,500/-. Reflecting this very purport, as many as three charges were framed. The driver categorically stated that he received Rs.1,000/-, immediately after the accident, and the balance of Rs.1,500/-, 18 days after the accident. If that contention were to be true, there was no delay or resultant misconduct of temporary misappropriation. In the course of domestic enquiry, the employee procured the presence of the driver of the lorry. It was clearly mentioned that Rs.1,500/- was paid 18 days after the date of accident. Nothing to the contrary was elicited from the driver of the lorry. It, therefore, emerges that there was no delay on the part of the driver of the bus in remitting the amount received by him towards damage to the bus. The Labour Court has taken that into account and passed the award. Petitioners are not able to point out any legal or factual infirmity in the award. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29.12.2010. GJ