THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.35900 OF 1998 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the Award passed in I.D.No.99 of 1994, dated 16-03-1998. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’), is the petitioner. The 2nd respondent herein is the workman Driver of the Corporation, who raised the above industrial dispute. Though the 2nd respondent workman has been served, he has not been represented by a counsel. His name is also printed in the cause-list, still, there is no appearance of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent workman was employed as a Drier with the State-owned Corporation since 13-12- 1980. While performing the duties as a Driver of the bus bearing registration No. AEZ 4526 on city bus route number 158, he caused an accident, involving an auto- rickshaw bearing registration No. AET 1069. A lady passenger of the said auto-rickshaw died on the spot, while another male passenger, succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment on 01-10-1991. Apart from these two, the driver of the auto-rickshaw has also sustained grievous injuries. Alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of the 2nd respondent workman, which has resulted in death of two individuals, a criminal case was registered against him under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He was also subjected to disciplinary proceedings simultaneously. The case of the Corporation is that the 2nd respondent was driving the bus, at bout 6-50 am., on 13- 09-1991, on city bus route from Dislukhnagar to Rahmatnagar in Hyderabad city, without taking adequate precautions, and caused the accident near about Saradhi Studio. On receipt of information, the Assistant Manager (Traffic) reached the accident site and prepared the sketch with regard to the location of the vehicle at the point of impact with the auto-rickshaw, which came in the opposite direction. The Assistant Manager (Traffic) has also noticed the skid marks of the tyres of the bus for a distance of about 5 feet behind the bus, thus signifying that the bus was obviously driven at a greater speed without anticipating the opposite vehicular traffic. It was also further noticed that the width of the road was only 30 feet and the bus was found being driven in the middle of the said road instead of at its left side. Consequently, the auto which was coming in the opposite direction has not been left enough of space for avoiding the impact. The right side portion of the bus, which hit the auto-rickshaw, has resulted in the auto-rickshaw turning turtle and resulting in the instantaneous death of one of its passengers. Based upon the evidence that was collected at the domestic enquiry, the 2nd respondent workman has been removed from service as a measure of punishment. Calling in question the correctness of this Order, the industrial dispute in question has been raised by him, as the Appeal and Review preferred by the workman to the departmental agencies have failed. The criminal court has acquitted the 2nd respondent workman as there was not sufficient evidence brought before it that the bus was driven rashly or negligently by him. On behalf of the workman, Exs.W-1 and W-2 have been marked. Ex.W-1 is the Judgment rendered by the criminal court on 02-11-1994, in C.C.No.314 of 1992, whereas Ex.W-2 is the charge sheet filed by the Police in the said criminal case. On behalf of the management of the Corporation, 16 documents have been marked. The Assistant Manager (Traffic) has been examined during the course of enquiry and the statement made by him and recorded by the Enquiry Officer has been exhibited as Ex.M-8, before the Labour Court by the management of the Corporation. Similarly, the statements made by the workman Driver and the service Conductor of the bus at the time of the accident have also been got marked as Ex.M-2. The preliminary enquiry report was got marked as Ex.M-4. In spite of noticing that there has been a ‘S’ bend ahead, the bus was driven in the middle of the road instead of driving the same on the left hand side. Obviously, the 2nd respondent workman has not properly or correctly anticipated the oncoming traffic. But, notwithstanding the rough sketch of the accident spot, which has been marked as Ex.M-1, the Labour Court has reached the conclusion that even if the bus was driven on its left hand side, the accident would still be inevitable. The Labour Court further recorded that presence of skid marks of the bus tyres for about 5 feet distance would clearly show that the bus was going on very moderate speed and hence, it arrived at a conclusion that there are no grounds to conclude that there was contributory negligence or carelessness or rash driving on the part of the workman. Plainly speaking, the findings recorded by the Labour Court, as noted supra, are not based upon any material. They appeared more imaginary rather than the result of any process of reasoning. If there is a ‘S’ bend ahead, one is required to follow the traffic rule of driving only on the left side of the road. Merely because there is a ‘S’ bend ahead, and even if the bus was found at the middle of the road, the other half of the road can exclusively be negotiated by the oncoming traffic is not a conclusion based upon valid reasons. When there is a ‘S’ turn to be taken ahead, every motor vehicle driver is required to be very cautious and careful as he may not have the advantage of clearly noticing the oncoming traffic and also the speed at which that traffic is flowing as there will be very less time available for a driver to assess the speed of the vehicle. Therefore, every driver of a motor vehicle is required to be extra cautious and careful while negotiating ‘S’ bends and, particularly, when one is approaching such a bend. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court that the accident is inevitable even if the bus in question was driven on the left side of the road was clearly an unsustainable finding. There is neither basis nor material or even a proper reasoning that was assigned in this respect by the Labour Court. Equally baffling is the finding that the skid marks of the tyres of the bus on the road would indicate that the bus is driven at a moderate speed. On the contrary, the skid marks of the tyres would only indicate that the momentum of the bus gained by virtue of the speed at which it was traveling had got to be broken very forcedly, lest, there would not have been skid marks left on the road. If a bus or a motor vehicle is driven at a moderate speed, the momentum of such a vehicle can be brought under control in very quick time, but however, that would not necessarily result in any skid marks. Only when motor vehicles are driven at a reasonably high speed and when their momentum was sought to be broken suddenly, the friction between the tyres surface and the road surface would increase, resulting in the skid marks. Therefore, even for this reason, the findings of the Labour Court are unsustainable. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent workman or carelessness or rash driving on his part, is the conclusion reached without much of appreciation of the material that was marshalled before it. Ex.M-8 clearly brings out that the driver of the bus has, obviously, failed to anticipate the oncoming traffic, perhaps, as he was driving the bus at a fairly early part of the day, but that is no reason for the 2nd respondent workman to have failed to be cautious and careful, particularly, when a ‘S’ bend is ahead of him. In all other circumstances, I would have remitted the matter back for fresh consideration to the Labour Court so that the parties can lead appropriate evidence before it, but however, pursuant to the Award passed by the Labour Court, the management of the Corporation has reinstated the respondent workman to duty as Driver. He has also since, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-09-2006. I, therefore, refrain myself from remitting the matter back. However, there is no justification for the Labour Court to have awarded payment of entire back wages for the period of absence from service by the 2nd respondent workman. Payment of back wages is not an automatic affair to follow upon reinstatement of workman. Relevant factors have got to be taken into consideration and account. As one can reasonably infer on the basis of the material that was marshalled before the Labour Court, which material has been pointedly drawn by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation for my consideration, the 2nd respondent workman has contributed to the accident in question, therefore, it would only be appropriate to penalize him to that extent. In view of the subsequent developments, including the retirement of the 2nd respondent workman, I consider that the ends of justice would be met if the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No. 99 of 1994, dated 16.03.1998, is modified by deleting that portion, which awarded payment of back wages to the 2nd respondent workmen herein. The rest of the award is retained. Subject to what has been indicated supra, the writ petition is allowed, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 12th November 2009