THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.770 of 2008 Dated: 21.04.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Hanamkonda. .. Petitioner. And The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, And another. ... Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award dated 18.06.2007 passed in I.D.No.8 of 2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal. Petitioner is the management. 2nd respondent is the workman. It appears, while the 2nd respondent, who was appointed in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘A.P.S.R.T.C.’) in the year 1980 on temporary basis, was conducting the bus bearing No. AP 9 X 2356 on 06.06.1994, on the route Hanamkonda-Thimmapet, the bus met with an accident and the right side front clamp of the main spring was broken. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the 2nd respondent was imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have effect on future increments besides recovery of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of damages in five monthly instalments, by order dated 09.05.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised a dispute before the concilation authorities, and on failure of conciliation, the Government referred the matter under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, for adjudication of the following dispute: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hanamkonda, is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have effect on future increments besides recovery of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of damages in 5 monthly installments against Sri M.A.Hussain, E- 95960, Driver, vide order dated 09.05.1995?” Before the Labour Court, though no oral evidence was adduced on either side, on behalf of the Management, documents Exs.M1 to M22 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material on record, by the impugned award dated 18.06.2007, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct and, accordingly, answered the reference holding that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have effect on future increments, besides recovery of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of damages in five monthly instalments against the workman, is not justified and, accordingly, modified the said punishment as reduction of pay by two incremental stages, but without cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of damages, and the management was directed to pay the arrears of increments within three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The allegation against the 2nd respondent-workman was that while he was conducting the bus bearing No.AP 9 X 2356 on the route Tadvai-Eturnagaram, the bus went off the road and fell into a ditch, resulting in death of one person and injuries to 27 passengers, apart from breaking of the right side front clamp of the main spring and helper of the bus. This was the accusation in substance. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations made against the workman and also the relevant material and the past record of the workman placed before it, held that the rash and negligent driving of the workman is not proved, but however the workman failed to take necessary precautionary measures and driven the vehicle with lack of anticipation. Further, the Labour Court observed that the penalty imposed upon the workman is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and also against the circular instructions in Circular No.PD-97/1988, dated 20.09.1988, and, therefore, modified the major punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect only to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages without cumulative effect. Thus, the impugned award needs no interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 21.04.2010 v v