THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO W.A.No.659 of 2011 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This appeal is preferred by the Depot Manager, APSRTC Narayanpet Depot, Mahaboobnagar District, calling in question the correctness of the judgment dated 29.06.2011 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13075 of 2005, which was preferred by the said Depot Manager challenging the validity of the award passed in I.D.No.65 of 2002 on 02.09.2004 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. 2. The first respondent (henceforth referred to as ‘workman’) was appointed as a Driver. He drove the bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 2560 on 25.09.2000 on route Narayanapet to Thirumalapur. Though no accident has been caused by him while driving the said bus, it was alleged against him that he caused an accident by colliding with another bus of the Corporation bearing No.AP 9Z 6208 and a domestic enquiry was conducted. The assertion of the workman that he has not caused the accident was not challenged by the Corporation. Strangely, it has not even examined any independent witness to establish that the accident was in fact caused by the workman. In spite of the same, the Enquiry Officer returned a finding that the accident was caused by the workman. Based upon the findings of the said Enquiry Officer, the services of the workman were terminated on 26.11.2001. In the meantime, the workman has attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2002. 3. Challenging his termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the Labour Court has returned a specific finding that the workman has not caused the accident and that the Corporation has failed to establish the charge framed against him. The Labour Court has also recorded that there is no accident caused involving the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 2560 on 25.09.2000. Therefore, it allowed the Industrial Dispute duly setting aside the order of termination dated 26.11.2001. Since the workman has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2002, the Labour Court directed that he is entitled to all retiral benefits as usual apart from entitlement to all the benefits up to the date of superannuation. 4. The award was challenged by the Depot Manager by instituting the above writ petition. The learned single Judge has gone through the entire material on record. Before the Domestic Enquiry Officer, Sri K. Kalappa, Security Guard, Sri E. Chandra Naik, Electrician and Sri M. Suresh, Conductor of the bus have been examined in support of the charge. The Security Guard Sri K. Kalappa has deposed that the workman has brought the bus for repairing the right side head light dome while E. Chandra Naik, Electrician stated that he repaired the defect pointed out by the workman to the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 2560. The Conductor M. Suresh deposed that repair was required because the bus while negotiating Jaipur Vagu, lost electric contact on the right side. No witness has stated about any accident involving the said bus. Therefore, the learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are proper and correct. Hence, he dismissed the writ petition instituted by the appellant and directed to finalise the terminal benefits of the workman within a period of two months and settle the same. 5. We have perused the entire material on record. We have also repeatedly queried the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant to demonstrate as to the availability of any material on record to indicate that the workman has caused the alleged accident while driving the bus. In spite of his best efforts, the learned Standing Counsel could not convince us with reference to any material available on record that the accident was caused by the workman involving the bus driven by him, for him to suffer any punishment as a measure of discipline. We are, therefore, convinced that the Labour Court has arrived at a reasonably sustainable finding that in the absence of any material to indicate that the bus driven by the workman was involved in any accident, the charge laid against him cannot be said as proved. When once the charge is not held established, the question of penalising the workman would not arise. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court is fair and reasonable. The learned single Judge has also looked into the entire material and has come to the same conclusion. 6. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is granted two months time from today to calculate all the benefits payable to the workman from the date of his termination from service, which is now set aside, till the date of superannuation and settle the same. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Date:25.11.2011 sj