THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21551 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was recruited as a driver for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) in the year 1979. On 18.07.2005, when he was driving a bus on the road from Secunderabad to Medak, an accident occurred. Based on that, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Depot Manager, Medak, the third respondent herein, passed an order dated 01.04.2006 directing removal of the petitioner from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner filed I.D.No.91 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court passed an award dated 21.07.2010 holding that the Corporation failed to prove that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However, the punishment was modified to the one of reinstatement into service without continuity of service and back wages. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of back wages and continuity of service. Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had rendered about three decades of unblemished service and he is denied the benefit of his entire service even after the Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner was not negligent in driving. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law. Sri C. Sunil Kumar, learned standing counsel, who takes notice for the respondent Corporation, at the stage of admission, submits that the occurrence of the accident is not disputed and that the Labour Court has taken into account, the consequence of the occurrence; though on technical grounds it was held that the Corporation failed to prove the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was on duty on 18.07.2005 on a service from Secunderabad to Medak. It is no doubt true that an accident occurred resulting in death of an individual. Blaming the petitioner for the said accident, the third respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings and passed an order of removal. In I.D.No.91 of 2007 filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court reassessed the entire evidence and recorded its finding as under: “So, the finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is perverse”. With this finding by the Labour Court, on an important aspect, the whole of the disciplinary proceedings stood initiated and the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner deserved to be set aside. However, while granting the relief, the learned Presiding Officer directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service, but without continuity of service and back wages. With each year of service rendered by an employee, certain benefits are earned in the form of provident fund etc.,. Pension, wherever, it is provided for, is paid in return for the service rendered by the employee and the right to receive pension accrues not as an independent benefit. By the time, the petitioner was removed from service, he rendered almost three decades of service, which entitles him to receive the benefits which in terms of considerable amount of money. It is just ununderstandable as to how such benefits could have been denied to him in the teeth of the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the observation of the enquiry officer as to the negligence of the petitioner is perverse. Strictly speaking, the Labour Court cannot be said to have laid any foundation for denial of back wages also. However, if one takes into account, the fact that the Corporation has to shell down substantial amount towards compensation for the dependents of the perton who died in the accident or for repairs of the vehicle, denial of back wages cannot be said to be without basis. However, the benefits of past service ought not to have been denied to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the award passed by the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, and attendant benefits, but without any back wages. The increments, if any, that accrue to the petitioner till the date of superannuation shall be taken into account, limited to the extent of calculating the retirement benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 01st August, 2011 GHN