HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20774 OF 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against an award made in I.D. No.45 of 2001 dated 06-04-2002 on the file of the learned Industrial Tribunal–II, Hyderabad, whereunder the writ petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent No.1 herein – Workman with continuity of service and 25% of backwages with all attendant benefits. 2. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioners are referred to as APSRTC and respondent No.1 as Workman. 3 . While admitting the writ petition, interim stay only to the extent of payment of backwages was ordered. Though an order of subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “ID Act”) was passed, Workman was reinstated into service. 4. It appears, while the Workman was working as Driver with the APSRTC, the bus driven by him involved in an accident and killed a Scooterist, therefore management of APSRTC issued a charge sheet enumerating the following charges and calling for his explanation: 1. You have driven Bus No.AAZ 5936 at about 13.30 hours on 08-07-98 in a negligent manner at Lal Bungalow, Ameerpet which came in contact with a scooterist riding on Scooter No.AAU-9861 who was also proceeding in the same direction at the accident spot had lost his balance and fell down on the road and came under the right side rear tyres, due to which he received grievous bleeding injuries and died on the way to the Hospital on the same day. 2. You have failed to ensure sufficient precautionary measures with lack of anticipation and failed to observe other road users at the accident spot on 8-7-98 at 13.30 hours while you were driving the Vehicle No.AAZ 5936 on route No.48 at Lal Bungalow, Ameerpet where the Scooterist who was proceeding in the same direction came into contact with the bus, fell down and received grievous bleeding injuries and died on the way to hospital on the same day. 5. Having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Workman, an enquiry officer was appointed and a detailed enquiry was conducted, and thereafter, Workman was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, Workman raised dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court. 6. According to the Workman before the Labour Court, enquiry was not properly conducted and the charges are trivial in nature and even assuming that charges were proved, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The management of APSRTC resisted the same by way of filing a counter and stated that the Workman drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation of other road users and the right side middle portion of the bus dashed against a Scooterist, as a result, Scooterist fell down on the road and suffered severe bleeding injuries on the head and died while he was being taken to the hospital. The domestic enquiry was properly conducted and there is any amount of evidence available on record to show that the Workman was guilty of the charges, therefore, he was removed from service. The order passed by the appellate authority does not call for any interference by the Labour Court. 7. The management of APSRTC filed counter denying the allegations. 8. However, it appears that Workman filed a memo under Section 11(A) of the ID Act indicating that though he raised the question of validity of domestic enquiry, waived the same. 9. After going through the material placed before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that the management of APSRTC failed to prove that Workman had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and he was responsible for the accident. In this regard, Tribunal recorded its finding as under: Apart from that petitioner himself admitted that the bus was going at a low speed as it was just moved from the stage. When there is no contrary evidence to the above evidence one has to come to conclusion that petitioner had not driven the vehicle in rash negligent manner. The findings of the enquiry officer are mainly based on the Chief Traffic Inspector’s report and also the sketch prepared by him which is marked as Ex.M2. The sketch does not reveal whether there is any skid marks or whether there was any dragging of the scooter by the bus etc., Unfortunately none of the passengers were examined by the Traffic Inspector of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore merely relying on the sketch prepared by the Traffic Inspector coming to conclusion that petitioner had driven the bus in rash and negligent manner cannot be sustained. Absolutely when there is no direct evidence and when direct witness were not examined. It is impossible for any one to come to conclusion merely basing on Ex.M2 prepared by the Traffic Inspector. Apart from that as observed by me the Learned Magistrate categorically stated that a prosecution miserably failed to establish that the accused (petitioner) was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore the findings of the enquiry officer holding petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him and findings are not based on the evidence. Hence the said findings cannot be sustained. Therefore I hold that respondent failed to prove that petitioner had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and he is responsible for the accident. 10. The Labour Court in its wisdom gave a finding that the charges are not proved and further the Workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of backwages with all attendant benefits. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that once the accident is not denied and on the basis of the same evidence Workman was guilty of the charges, interfering with the order passed by the management, may be proper only to the extent of reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. But, awarding 25% backwages is unwarranted. 12. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the portion of the impugned order directing payment of 25% of the backwages for the period the Workman was out of service is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J July 27, 2010. PV