THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6997 of 2003 ORDER: The deceased-1st petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., on 01.10.1982. On 11.5.1992, he was driving a bus on the route from Hanamkonda to Hyderabad. A light commercial vehicle came in the opposite direction, without leaving much space for the bus. The driver had to swerve the bus to left, and in the process, it dashed against a parked trailor of a tractor. The vehicle sustained damage, but neither any injuries were sustained by the passengers, nor any death occurred. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the driver by issuing a charge sheet, alleging negligence. He submitted his explanation. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that the charge against the driver is proved. The Depot Manager passed an order, dated 29.10.1992, directing removal of the driver from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he filed I.D.No.4 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Warangal. Through its order, dated 05.03.2002, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the driver as a fresh candidate by denying back wages and continuity of service. Not satisfied with the relief, he filed this Writ Petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, he died on 10.04.2009 and his legal representatives are brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that the driver was not wholly responsible for the accident and it was more a case of lack of anticipation than of negligence. He contends that once the charge against the petitioner is not held proved, the relief of reinstatement into service with back wages and continuity of service ought to have been granted. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submits that though the Labour Court made certain observations as to the circumstances under which the accident occurred, it did not absolve the driver of the charge completely. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in J.K.Synthetics v K.P.Agrawal[1], learned counsel submits that once a punishment of lesser magnitude is imposed, the relief of back wages and continuity of service cannot be granted. The charge against the driver was that he was negligent in driving the bus and that in turn led to occurrence of the accident. The charge was held proved and through order, dated 29.09.1992, the 1st respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he approached the Labour Court. There was delay of five years in raising the industrial dispute. The Labour Court took that aspect into account, even while holding that the charge was not held proved. The relief of appointment as a fresh candidate was granted. The driver had to his credit, 10 years of past service. The accident did not result in any death or injuries. Wherever the accident results in damage to the bus, the Corporation generally recovers the cost of repair. It is in the process of averting a major accident, on account of collision with the light commercial vehicle that the driver had to turn the bus to left and almost at the halting stage it dashed against a stationed trailor. An accident of such a nature ought not to have resulted in removal of an employee, from service. Though there was justification for the Labour Court in denying the back wages, it ought to have granted the relief of continuity of service at least for the limited purpose of calculating the death cum retirement benefits. I n J.K.Synthetics’s case (supra) the Supreme Court held that wherever a punishment of lesser magnitude is imposed, relief of back wages and continuity of service cannot be granted. It was also observed that the continuity of service at the best can be ordered for the purpose of calculating the retirement benefits. The same principle can be applied to this case also. The 1st petitioner did not avail the remedy of raising the industrial dispute for a period of five years, after the review was rejected. Therefore, he cannot be extended the benefit even for the limited purpose, for that period. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the deceased-1st petitioner was entitled for the benefit of continuity of service excluding the period of five years. As a consequence, the respondents shall calculate the terminal benefits and extend the pensionery benefits, if otherwise permissible duly counting the service of the deceased – 1st petitioner from 01.10.1982 till the date of his death, excluding the period of five years. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt19.01.2011. GJ [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433