THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.6156 of 2008 Date: 23.09.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vuyyur Depot, Vuyyur, Krishna District .. Petitioner AND The Chairman, APSRTC Employees Union, Vijayawada Zone, rep. for P.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Driver, E. 351203 and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.6156 of 2008 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), through its Depot Manager, Vuyyur Depot, Krishna District, assails the Award dated 12.04.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.141 of 2003. By the said award the Labour Court, in a reference under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1947), held that the action of the APRSTC in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect upon the driver, P.S.R. Anjaneyulu, besides treating his period of suspension as not on duty was unjustified. The facts of the case are that when the driver, P.S.R. Anjaneyulu, was plying a bus on the route Machilipatnam-Vijayawada on 28.12.1996 at 18.30 hours, an accident occurred at Paranasala village when a cyclist coming from the opposite direction suddenly crossed the road and in the process, dashed against the bus and fell upon an electric pole. He died due to his head hitting the electric pole. However, the APSRTC initiated disciplinary proceedings against the driver on two charges. “1. For having driven the bus AP 9Z 8558 on 28.12.96 on the route MTM-VJA in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident at paranasala with a cyclist who received serious injuries and died on the spot which is misconduct vide Reg.28 (xix) (b) and (xxix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having driven the vehicle with lack of anticipation and precautionary measures, resulting in accident with a cyclist on 28.12.96 on MTM-VJA route resulting death of the cyclist which is misconduct under Reg.28 (ix)(b) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.” Dissatisfied with his explanation, the APSRTC ordered a domestic enquiry into the matter. Basing on the Enquiry Officer’s Report, the punishment as stated supra was imposed upon the driver. His appeal and review against the same were also rejected. Thereupon, the reference was made to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court having analysed the precedential law on the aspect rightly opined that it would not be proper on its part to interfere with the findings in the enquiry unless such findings were perverse or were not based on material evidence. Insofar as the first charge is concerned, the Labour Court found that the Enquiry Officer himself held in favour of the driver observing that it was not proved that he had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Insofar as the second charge is concerned, the Enquiry Officer found that the driver had taken precautionary measures but held against him on the charge of ‘lack of anticipation’. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was of the opinion that once the driver did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and had taken due and proper precautionary measures, he could not be accused of lack of anticipation. Stating so, the Labour Court held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer in this regard was perverse and accordingly answered the reference holding in favour of the driver. Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, contended that the Labour Court ought not to have set aside the punishment imposed upon the driver as a cyclist met with his death in the accident involving the driver. Further, as the APSRTC had followed the due procedure, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the scope of interference being limited, the Labour Court erred in exercising jurisdiction in this regard. I am however disinclined to accept this submission. It is no doubt true that the scope of interference by the Labour Court in the matter was limited. This aspect was not lost sight of by the Labour Court itself. As rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, it could not interfere with the findings in the enquiry unless they were perverse or they were unsupported by evidence. Having stated so, on facts the Labour Court found such perversity to be established. Once the driver was found not guilty of the charges of rash and negligent driving and not taking preventive measures, I am at a loss to understand as to how he could be charged with lack of anticipation, which would be part and parcel of the charge of negligence. It is only a species of that genus. Once the Enquiry Officer himself found in favour of the driver to the effect that he was not negligent, the finding that he was guilty of lack of anticipation cannot be sustained. The Labour Court was therefore correct in holding that the said finding was perverse. No grounds are made out for interference with the well- reasoned and cogent award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2010 Isn