THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3455 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed against award dated 12.03.2004 passed in I.D.No.251 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is the management and 2nd respondent is the Depot Secretary of APSRTC Staff and Workers Federation, Gajuwaka Depot, representing B.V.Raghavulu-workman. It appears, while the workman was driving the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 2843 on 02.08.1994 on route Devarapalli to Jerrila and when the said bus reached near Vanthadapalli village, due to failure of breaks, the bus met with an accident resulting in the death of one lady passenger and injuries to several other persons. Thereupon, the workman was issued with a charge sheet and he was placed under suspension by order dated 04.10.1994. The workman submitted his explanation to the charge sheet. However, having not satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was ordered. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 05.01.1995, imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1000/- towards the costs of the damage, besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty. Aggrieved thereby, the workman preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Visakhapatnam (Rural), and the same was rejected on 01.06.200 as time barred. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the conciliation authorities questioning the order of punishment and, on failure of conciliation, the Government of A.P. referred the matter to the 1st respondent-Tribunal, under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), in I.D.No.251 of 2002, for adjudication of the following question: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narsipatnam in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1000/-towards the cost of the damages besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty on Sri B.V.Raghavulu, E.453795, driver is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workman, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. On behalf of the management, none were examined, but Exs.M1 to M25 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material on record, by the impugned award dated 12.03.2004, the Labour Court had set aside the order of punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read as under: “I have gone through the records. C.I., who gave evidence before the enquiry officer is not an eye witness to the incident. The conductor of the bus who was examined did not depose anything against the workman. His evidence, in a way, supports the contention of the workman. The workman and the conductor also sustained injuries in the accident. The AME who was examined deposed with regard to the damages. The workman gave his evidence before the enquiry officer and neither the enquiry officer nor anyone from the management side cross-examined the workman. The enquiry officer on some inference found the workman guilty of the charge. I have also gone through Exs.M5 and M6 statements which were obtained during preliminary enquiry. The persons who gave these statements were not examined. The said persons except saying that the workman drove the bus speedily, did not state anything against the workman. They did not state as to with what speed the vehicle was moving. The C.I. did not record any statements from the witnesses. He took reports from the passengers. During the domestic enquiry proceedings, it is for the management to prove its case against the workman herein. The enquiry officer has to decide the matter on the material placed before him. If really the workman drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and if he is squarely responsible for the accident, the management ought to have removed the petitioner from service, but the management instead of passing the order of removal, passed the order which is in question. It appears that the management imposed the present punishment to create an impression in the mind of the public that they awarded punishment to the driver. That should not be the attitude of the management. The management ought not to have relied on the enquiry report in toto. It should also take into consideration various aspects before imposing the punishment. If really the workman was driving the vehicle speedily, then there would have been serious damage to the vehicle and number of persons also would have died. The old lady died because of the spare tyre. If she had not come into contact with the spare tyre, she too would have escaped with some injuries. The enquiry officer did not make proper efforts to find out the truth. The management simply relied on the report of the enquiry officer and while awarding the punishment did not consider all aspects. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the management is not justified in imposing the punishment which is in question. The 1st point is answered against the workman. Point No.2: In view of the finding on point no.1, the order which is in question is to be set aside.” From the above, it is clear that the occurrence of the accident is not denied. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the accident occurred due to failure of breaks is not found in the entire impugned order. The death of one lady passenger and the injuries caused to several passengers is also not disputed. In these circumstances, letting of the workman without any punishment would amount to rewarding him for his negligent behavior at the time of driving the bus. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed by the management is highly reasonable, which ought not to have been interfered with by the Labour Court. As such, the order dated 05.01.1995 passed by the petitioner-management is upheld and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 24.01.2011 v v