THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 31955 OF 1998 Date: 12.02.2008 Between: N. Srinivas. … Petitioner and The Presiding Officer, Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 31955 OF 1998 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D. No. 86of 1995 dated 09.07.1996. The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the award in so far as he has been denied back wages and other monetary benefits. The petitioner, a driver with the APSRTC, was alleged to have driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of a beggar. He was imposed the punishment of removal from service which order was confirmed in appeal and in review. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-workman invoked the jurisdiction of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Additional Industrial Tribunal, the workman filed a memo requesting the Court to hear final arguments on perversity of the findings and the quantum of punishment and did not dispute the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to re- appreciate the evidence on record and to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges levelled against the petitioner were established, observed that from the circumstances of the case in the scene of accident, it could be seen from Ex.M.1 the accident rough sketch, that the petitioner had swerved the vehicle rashly towards the right side to take a turn to go to Secunderabad, that he did not leave any space between the bus and the traffic island and that the rear portion of the bus had hit a beggar standing on the extreme edge of the traffic island. While holding that there was recklessness on the part of the petitioner, the Labour Court considered it appropriate to deny him back wages as a measure of punishment, and the award was passed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages or any other monetary benefits. Sri Pradeep, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place before this Court a copy of the final report filed by Gopalapuram Police Station, in F.I.R. No.68 of 1994 dated 26.10.1994, to the effect that the rash and negligent act was not established. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C is not amongst the exhibits marked before the Labour Court. In certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will only examine the validity of the award on the basis of the material placed on record before the Labour Court and will not take into consideration matters extraneous thereto. The Labour Court has categorically held, based on Ex.M-1 accident rough sketch, that the petitioner had swerved the vehicle rashly towards the right side to take a turn to go to Secunderabad, that he did not leave any space between the bus and the traffic island and that the rear portion of the bus had hit the beggar standing on the extreme edge of the traffic island. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse or are based on no evidence. For the charge of rash and negligent driving, which has resulted in the death of a person, the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has been extremely lenient in modifying the punishment of removal from service with one of reinstatement without back wages. While such undue indulgence on the part of the Labour Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A, was not justified, more so when the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner has resulted in the death of a person, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the APSRTC has also filed a writ petition challenging the award. As the petitioner cannot be mulcted with a higher punishment than the one imposed by the Labour Court in a writ petition filed by him, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition upholding the award of the Labour Court to the limited extent a challenge has been made thereto with regards denial of back wages and other monetary benefits. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition upholding the award will not have a bearing on the writ petition, if any, filed by the APSRTC challenging the award. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ Date: 12.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR