THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:13075 OF 2005 DATED:29.06.2011 BETWEEN: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C …PETITIONER AND The Presiding Officer, Labour Court III, Hyderabad & another . …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:13075 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the A.P.S. R.T.C seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the award in I.D.No:65 of 2002, dated 2.9.2004 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad and set aside the same. The brief facts of the case are as under: The 2nd respondent is the workman and he filed I.D.65 of 2002 under section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking to set aside the termination order dated 26.11.2001 passed against him and to direct the Corporation to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. The learned Labour Court by award dated 2.9.2004 while setting aside the order of termination held that the workman is entitled for continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits till the date of superannuation i.e., on 31.5.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present writ petition. This Court by order dated 20.6.2005 while ordering rule nisi, granted interim stay in W.P.M.P.No:16600 of 2006 on condition of the Corporation reinstating the workman into service. In the instant case, the workman has already attained the age of superannuation as on 31.5.2002 and it appears that this fact might not have been brought to the notice of this Court at the time of granting the interim stay on 20.6.2005. Heard the learned counsel. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the Labour Court has erred in passing the award by holding that the charges leveled against the workman are not proved without considering the report of the enquiry officer that the charges leveled against the workman are proved. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the workman that the Labour Court has vested with ample power to consider not only the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer but also the genuineness or otherwise of the charges. The Labour Court having considered the rival contentions and the material aspects has come to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the workman are not proved and therefore, the workman is entitled for all the benefits till the date of age of superannuation. For the purpose of appreciation of the facts of the case leading to file the O.A and the present writ petition, it is necessary to go through the facts of the case. Originally, with regard to the allegation that on 25.9.2000, the workman caused the accident with another vehicle coming in opposite direction bearing No:AP 9Z 6208 by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and it result in death of four passengers in the bus bearing No:AP 9 Z 6208 and the other passengers sustained injuries, the following charge sheet was issued against the workman “For having hit the vehicle AP 9 Z with vehicle No:AP 9Z 2560 due to your rash and negligent driving, resulted in the vehicle No:AP 9Z 6208 capsized near Jajapur bridge at about 20.45 hours on 25.9.2000 caused spot death of four passengers of vehicle No:6208 and some other passengers sustained severe minor injuries which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix) (B) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The workman submitted his explanation denying the charge and in that regard, domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charge leveled against him. In this regard, the Labour Court has framed the following points for consideration: 1.whether the charge framed against the petitioner is proved with the material on record and according to law. 2.whether the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate and if so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. In this connection the Labour Court observed that with regard to the alleged accident, the police have not registered any criminal case against the workman and the workman has not been arrested with regard to the alleged incident and consequently, there is no material on record to show that the charge leveled against the workman has been proved. Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel. The material on record shows that in the domestic enquiry, Sri K.Kalappa, Security Guard deposed that on 25.9.2000 while he was on duty, the workman reached there for repairing the right side head light dome, which was not glowing and Sri M.Suresh, the conductor stated that their bus fell down into Jajapur Vagu and another witness E.Chandra Naik, the Electrician stated that he repaired the defect pointed out by the workman to his vehicle No:AP 9Z 2560. Thus, the witnesses did not speak about the involvement of the vehicle AP 9Z 2560 in the accident with another bus bearing No:AP 9Z 6208. If that being the case, the entire proceedings initiated against the workman becomes vitiated as rightly observed by the Labour Court. In the background of these material facts coupled with the fact that no crime has been registered with regard to the alleged accident, I am of the view that the Labour Court is justified in holding that the charge leveled against the workman has not been proved and therefore, the order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs. It is to be noted that since it has not been brought to the notice of this Court that the workman has already attained the age of superannuation by the date of granting the interim stay in favour of the Corporation, the workman could not get the terminal benefits, so that he was put to much hardship. In these circumstances, the authorities of the Corporation are directed to finalise the terminal benefits of the workman within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Date:29.06.2011 Gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:13075 OF 2005 DATED:29.06.2011