THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25635 OF 2000 Dt:25-11-2010. BETWEEN: THE APSRTC, REP. BY ITS DY.CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER MEDAK REGION, SANGAREDDY, O/O THE REGIONAL MANAGER, MEDAK REGION, MEDAK AND ANOTHER .. PETITIONERS AND M.SADATH ALI .. RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25635 OF 2000 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed against an award made in I.D.No.149 of 1996, dated 1.11.1999 on the file of Labour Court II, Hyderabad, where under the application filed under section 2-A(2) of I.D.Act, 1947, by the respondent- workman was allowed partly and the order of removal from service was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the respondent- workman into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits with 25 percent of back wages. Petitioner is the management of APSRTC. Respondent is the workman. It appears when the respondent was driving the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 2620, on reaching Narayankhed enroute to Zaheerabad was involved in an accident as a lady passenger tried to board into the moving bus, skipped, fell down and died. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 15.7.1995 enumerating the following charges: “ 1. For having driven the vehicle No.AP 9 Z 2620 in a rash and negligent manner and caused a fatal accident to a lady while boarding the bus and she died on the way to the hospital which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having driven the vehicle No.AP 9 Z 2620 on 3.7.1995 with lack of anticipation with the result the vehicle met with an accident in which a lady passenger by name Karne Nagamma Narsappa was succumbed to injuries while boarding in the bus and she died on the way to the hospital, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The respondent-workman submitted his detailed explanation. However, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent-workman a detailed enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer held the respondent-workman guilty of the charges and on the basis of the Enquiry Officer’s report and on his own examination the petitioner- management passed an order of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was rejected on 31.8.1996. Aggrieved further he raised a dispute under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 before the Labour Court II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.149 of 1996. Before the Labour Court it was the case of the respondent-workman that there was no misconduct on his part as alleged by the petitioner- management and even assuming that there is some misconduct the same was not proved and there was no necessity for passing an order of removal terminating his services and the same was disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The petitioner-management filed a detailed counter and stated that during his service respondent was censured twice and his increments were deferred once, for a similar misconduct. The petitioner-management had already conducted an enquiry after following due procedure and also in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The removal order passed by the petitioner-management was neither arbitrary nor illegal. After hearing both the parties, the Labour Court, prima facie, found that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner-management was just, proper and valid. However, while appreciating the merits of the case held that the charges framed against the respondent are trivial in nature and assuming that they are proved they do not call for a severe punishment of removal from service and as such has set aside the removal order and directed the petitioner- management to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and also 25% of the back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that the respondent having involved in a case of gross negligence on his part in driving the bus which resulted in the death of a lady passenger, which the Labour Court also found to be correct, but still ordered for reinstatement with 25% back wages which is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that in fact the respondent- workman was entitled for full back wages as the Labour Court recorded a finding that the charges are not proved. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions of either parties, perused the order impugned and also the material available on record. The Labour Court recorded its findings as follows: “ The Chief Inspector (Engineers) APSRTC, Sangareddy conducted the domestic enquiry. During the domestic enquiry one, Danial, Senior Traffic Inspector of Zaheerabad depot service conductor and the petitioner were examined. The service conductor stated before the enquiry officer that on 3.7.95 he was conducting bus bearing No.AEZ 2620 which was going from Narayankhed to Zaheerabad and when the bus arrived at Mandnoor stage there were about 90 passengers and 30 to 40 passengers boarded the bus at that stage and he issued tickets to most of the passengers and in the meanwhile another bus came from behind and on seeing that bus some of the passengers got down from his bus and went to board that bus. He further stated that after manning the passengers inside the bus he closed the door of the bus and gave signal to the driver to proceed further and as the bus moved a head passenger on the foot board started shouting that a lady passenger fell down and came under the back wheels of the bus and the bus was stopped and that he got down and seen the spot. He further stated that he found one lady lying and the back wheel tyres run over her thighs and there was bleeding and that the injured asked for water and after giving water she was taken to the government hospital in Zaheerabad. The petitioner stated before the enquiry officer that on 3.7.95 he was driving the bus which was proceeding from Narayankhed to Zaheerabad and when the bus reached Madnoor stage, the bus was full of passengers and some more passengers boarded the bus at that stage, and after the conductor gave him the signal and after closing the door to start the bus he started the bus and after moving to a distance of 100 yards passengers on foot board shouted for stopping the bus as one lady passenger fell down and came under the left side rear wheel and that he stopped the bus and found the lady at the left rear wheel with bleeding. He further stated that he immediately rushed to the police station and reported the matter. So, the evidence of service conducted and the petitioner is consistent. Their evidence categorically says that the petitioner started the bus after the conductor gave signal to start the bus after closing the door. One C.L.Daniel, Senior Traffic Inspector of Zaheerabad depot was also examined during the domestic enquiry and he started before the enquiry officer that he visited the place of accident after coming to know of the accident and obtained rough sketch of the accident and observed the place of accident. He further stated that he recorded the statements of one Magamma who accompanied the deceased and L.Narasappa who is the husband of the deceased. He further stated that he submitted preliminary report fixing the responsibility on the driver. The Chief Inspector, Daniel was not an eye witness to the accident. He only submitted the preliminary report on the basis of the observations made by him at the place of accident and the statements of the service conductor and some of the passengers. On the date of accident itself the petitioner and the service conductor gave statements before the Depot Manager, Zaheerabad. The petitioner stated before the depot manager that when his bus reached Mandnoor stage some of the passengers got down from the bus and some of the passengers boarded the bus was full of passengers and meanwhile one bus came behind his bus and on seeing that bus, one lady passenger who had given her bag to another passenger sitting on the fourth sent from the door attempted to take back her bag and meanwhile the conductor gave signal to move the bus after closing the door and on that he moved the bus. He further stated that as the lady passenger could not easily take back her bag she fell under the tyre as her leg slipped and on that the passengers asked him to stop the bus saying that, one lady passenger fell down under the bus. The conductor stated before the depot manager that when the bus was at Hadnoor stage some of the passengers got down and some of the passengers boarded and there was over load in their bus and meanwhile another bus came there from Zaheerabad and on seeing that bus some passengers who were about to board their bus went towards that bus and that he closed the door of the bus and gave signal to the driver to move the bus and the bus moved, that meanwhile, the passengers who were near the door told that one lady passenger fell under the tyre, and after stopping the bus he got down and saw one lady lying under the bus. He further stated that the driver of the bus went to the police station and informed the Sub-Inspector about the accident. So, the statements made by the service conductor before the depot manager and the enquiry officer consistently say that the driver moved the bus only after he gave the signal to move the bus. In view of the evidence the service conductor it is clear that the driver of the bus was not at fault. The Joint Accident Enquiry Committee also submitted a report stating that the driver and the conductor were responsible for the accident. The petitioner driver was tried for the offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC on the charge sheet filed by the Sub- Inspector of Madnoor police station by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Zaheerabad and after the full trial was acquitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge of rash and negligent driving is not sustainable in view of the criminal case ended in favour of the petitioner driver Ex.W1 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.226 of 1995 on the file of JMFC, Zaheerabad. After taking into consideration the result of the criminal case the statement of the service conductor and the report of the Joint Accident Enquiry Committee, I find that the petitioner did not drive the bus in rash and negligent manner. Even the enquiry officer held in his report that the conductor is guilty of charge No.1. Hence, I hold that the first charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved. The second charge is with regard to the lack of anticipation after considering the evidence of service conductor I find that the petitioner did not commit any mistake by moving the bus as he moved the bus only after can the conductor gave signal to move the bus. The conductor categorically stated that he closed the door and gave signal to the driver to move the bus. If this is so, the question of petitioner driving the bus with lady of anticipation does not arise. The enquiry officer also held in his report that the conductor is guilty of charge No.1. Hence, I held that charge No.2 levelled against the petitioner is also not proved. Since both the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved I hold that the respondent was not justified in removing the petitioner from service. Hence, I answer this point in favour of the petitioner. Point No.II: The contention of the petitioner is that he remained an unemployee after he was removed from service and he could not secure alternative employment inspite of his best efforts. The counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner did not work in the corporation after he was removed from service and therefore he is not entitled to the back wages. After taking into consideration the contention of the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent I feel that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is reinstated into service with 25% of back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. In the result, the impugned order dated 18.11.1985 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner is entitled to 25% of back wages. The award is passed accordingly. The award shall come into force u/s 17-A of I.D. Act, after 30 days of its publication.” From the above, it is clear that absolutely there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in question. The driver moved the bus after the conductor gave signal. In fact the lady passenger hurriedly tried to get into the moving bus and thus the accident took place. Therefore, it cannot be expected from the driver of the bus that there was any slackness on his part or he lacks anticipation of causing such unfortunate accident. Even otherwise the Labour Court while reinstating the respondent-workman denied 75% of the back wages. In my considered opinion, the award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from infirmity requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Dt:25-11-2010. ( C.V.RAMULU, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25635 OF 2000 DT: 25-11-2010.