IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.300 of 2006 Date: 25th January, 2011 Between: M.Narsaiah .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Armoor Depot, Nizamabad district and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.300 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking Certiorari to call for the records relating to award passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.171 of 1996 dated 3.11.1999 insofar as denying all other benefits, except ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service. Petitioner is workman and respondents 1 to 3 are management. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Driver in the Respondent-Corporation in the year 1987. While that being so, on 28.3.1993 petitioner while driving Bus No.AP 9Z 3895, the Bus met with an accident and the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: “1. For having driven the vehicle No.AP9Z 3895 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed causing major accident on the route Hyderabad-Armoor at about 7.30 hrs. at Sadasivanagar on 28.3.1993, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(ix) (a&b) (xiii) and (xxii) of APSRTC Employees, 1963. 2. For having driven the vehicle No.AP9Z 3895 with lack of anticipation, precautionary measures and without proper road sense causing major accident at 7.30 hrs. at Sadasivanagar on route Hyderabad-Armoor on 28.3.1993, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(ix) (a&b) (xiii) and (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. 3. For having caused an accident and dashed to a private Lorry No.M.H. 26/7272 severe injuries to 12 passengers of the Bus besides heavy damages to both the vehicles while driving the vehicle No.AP9Z 3895 on 28.3.1993 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(xi) (a&b) (xiii) and (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees, 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry, petitioner was removed from service on 6.11.1993. Aggrieved thereby, he filed appeal before the appellate authority. However, the said appeal was dismissed on 16.6.1994. Further aggrieved thereby petitioner filed a revision before the revisional authority and the same was also dismissed on 13.11.1996. Having left with no other alternative, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.171 of 1996. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was properly conducted and there was no evidence to prove the charges and assuming that charges are proved, punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The respondent-Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supported the removal order passed by the authority. Before the Labour Court, none were examined on behalf of petitioner, however document Ex.W1 was marked. On behalf of respondent-Management, M.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.M1 to M24 were marked. After a detailed examination of the entire record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that charge No.1 was not proved, whereunder petitioner was attributed with rash and negligent driving. Even in the criminal case, the competent Criminal Court found that similar charge of rash and negligent was not proved. It appears, when the Bus was proceeding from Hyderabad to Armoor, and after passing Kamareddy, at about 7.30 a.m. in the outskirts of Sadasivapet, he noticed a heavy smoke coming out from the burnt wheat brean and his bus fitted with diesel tanks on both sides he cut the Bus to right side as he suspected that the oil tank might catch the fire and after passing for a while, he found a lorry coming in the opposite direction and applied breaks to stop the Bus, but meanwhile his Bus lightly touched the front portion of the lorry. It appears, due to heavy smoke, petitioner could not notice the lorry coming in the opposite direction, as such the Labour Court rightly found that the charge No.1 as not proved. However, insofar as charges 2 and 3 are concerned, the Labour Court held that if the petitioner had anticipated the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, he would have slowed down the Bus, focused the headlights and sounded horn in order to avoid accident. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the petitioner is guilty of charges 2 and 3, but however the order of removal from service was set aside and directed the respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh recruit. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri P.Govind Reddy strenuously contended that once it was found that in view of smoke emanating from the road side which was blown hither wither, there was no clear vision and that resulted in the accident. Therefore, the question of anticipation does not arise. Therefore, it must be deemed that other charges are also not proved. Be that as it may, the Labour Court, in its discretion while exercising powers under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, granted reinstatement of the petitioner afresh. I am of the considered opinion, in a case of this nature, denying 13 years of long service cannot be said to be reasonable. Therefore, denying continuity of service would cause much hardship to the petitioner, which could not have been denied under the peculiar circumstances of the case and the nature of accident in which it occurred. Therefore, the petitioner shall be granted continuity of service with reinstatement into service instead of fresh recruit. Thus, the award passed by the Labour Court is modified to be read as; “Reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages and the service rendered by the petitioner prior to his reinstatement, shall be taken into consideration only for the purpose of retiral benefits and the petitioner is not entitled for any other benefits.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.1.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.300 of 2006 25.1.2011