IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21237 of 1999 Between: 1 The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Mudheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager(O), APSRTC Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket. 3 The Senior Manager(O), APSRTC Kothi Terminus, Charminar Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri A.J.Reddy, E.270747, R/o H.No.16-11-511/D/95, Shalivahana Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.23 of 1997 dt 18-9-98 published in G.O.Rt.No.2007 dt.16- 11-1998 on the file of the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and quash the order and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.NANDA R. RAO Counsel for the Respondent : MR.K.K.CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is directed against an award in I.D.No.23 of 1997 dated 18.09.1998 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the petition filed under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the respondent-workman was answered in his favour and the petitioner-Management was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service, full back wages and attendant benefits. It appears that the respondent-workman while driving the vehicle on the route Nandinagar to Koti (127-N) on 15.3.1995 at 2.30 p.m, when the bus crossed Ravindrabharathi square and was nearing A.I.R Bus stop, an accident took place, wherein a 15 years boy by name Md.Irfan sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. In view of this, the respondent-workman was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges. 1.The petitioner drove the bus AP9-Z, 4672 in a rash and negligent manner, which constitute misconduct. 2.The petitioner lacked anticipation in driving the bus and he has not taken due precautions, due to which he dashed against the scooterist who was going in the same direction, by the left side bus body, who fell down with fracture of right leg and bleeding from nose, who succumbed on the way to Osmania General Hospital, which constituted misconduct. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal of respondent-workman from service. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-workman filed an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court-1, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. No oral evidence was let in by either party. On behalf of respondent-workman Ex.W1 was marked. On behalf of the petitioner-Management Exs.M1 to M20 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that absolutely, there was no negligence on the part of the respondent-workman in driving the bus and the scooter mechanic boy who was said to be aged 15 years should not have travelled on the left side of the bus and the bus driver need not expect that when he was nearing the bus stop there would be any vehicle driver driving to the left side in the same direction trying to over take the bus and therefore, directed the petitioner-Management to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service, full back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management strenuously contended that the scooterist was only a boy of 15 years and he was going on the left side of the road in the lanes meant for two-wheeler. The respondent –workman was taking the vehicle to A.I.R bus stop from the middle of the road to the left side and in the process, he did not notice 15 years boy, who was driving the scooter and dashed against him and caused accident which resulted in death of the boy. Therefore, there was lack of anticipation and negligence on the part of the driver in driving the bus particularly when he was going to stop the bus on the left side of the road while the bus was nearing the bus stop. The labour Court has not taken these practicalities into consideration and simply held that the respondent-workman is not supposed to take care of the situation of this nature and therefore, he was not negligent nor there was any lack of anticipation on his part and accordingly directed the petitioner-Management to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service, full back wages, which is arbitrary and illegal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the scooterist was only 15 years old boy and he had no licence whatsoever and further he had touched the bus at the back side of the bus and therefore, there was no possibility of the respondent-workman taking any care of such situation. Hence, the labour Court has rightly found that the respondent-workman was not negligent and as such passed an order directing the petitioner- Management to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service, full back wages and other attendant benefits. The labour Court has not committed any error calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. I am of the opinion that when a boy of 15 years was driving the scooter on the same direction in which the bus was going, in between two wheeler lane and the bus was crossing from the middle of the road to left side of the road, it was bounden duty of the respondent-workman to take care of the situation where any other vehicle would not affect by such swerving of the bus. May be, one witness - K.Sudhakar gave evidence that he happened to travel in the same bus sitting in the ladies seat on the left side, where actually the scooter touched the bus and fell down. He further stated that the bus stopped at Ravindra Bharathi signal for a few minutes and thereafter started from there and proceeded towards A.I.R. stage. As he was to stop at A.I.R., the driver was taking the bus towards A.I.R. bus stop, shifting the bus from four wheeler lane to two wheeler lane. In the two wheeler lane the scooterist aged 15 years was driving the old model Lambretta scooter in the same direction on the left side. The scooter went out of control and it was moving waveringly and collided with the bus on the left side after it crossed 1/4th portion. The passenger shouted to stop the bus. The bus stopped with a sudden jerk. They got down and saw that the boy was lying 2 feet before the rear left tyre. But, such trivial negligence cannot form basis for removal of the workman from service. However, that does not mean that the Labour Court ought to have held that the respondent was not at all responsible for the said accident and he is not liable to be punished. Since there was some negligence, however trivial it is, the respondent is liable for some punishment or the other. In the overall circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Award passed by the Labour is liable to be modified to meet the ends of justice, as under: “The management is directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service, but with 25% of back wages and other attendant benefits.” The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________ 15-04-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1..2CD copies