IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.4124 of 2009 Between: Shaik Meera. … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vinukonda depot, Vinukonda, Guntur District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Govinda Rajulu. Counsel for the respondents: Sri C.Prakash Reddy This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 18-10-2004 passed in I.D.No.106 of 2000 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur (for short “the Labour Court”). The petitioner was driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation) and worked in Vinukonda Depot, Guntur District. On 14-5-1996 he caused an accident while driving the Corporation bus by dashing against a private van resulting in the death of four passengers travelling in the van and injuries to four passengers travelling in the bus. Following the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 27-9-1996. Questioning his removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.106 of 2000 before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. By award dated 18-10-2004 the Labour Court, while holding that charge of causing accident by rash and negligent driving is proved, however, modified the punishment of removal from service as treating the petitioner as having retired from service with effect from 30-9-1996. Partly aggrieved by this award, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that having held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, the Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement of the petitioner and allowed him to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation with effect from 31-5-2001. In my considered view, though the gravity of misconduct, viz., causing accident by driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and being responsible for the death of four persons and injuries to four others, does not warrant interference with the penalty imposed by the Corporation, by applying the doctrine of proportionality, since the said award is not questioned by the Corporation, it is not appropriate to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. However, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should have been permitted to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31-5-2001. The submission of the learned counsel that by converting the order of removal into one of retirement with effect from the date on which the petitioner was removed, he will not get any monetary benefits, does not merit acceptance. In the wisdom of the Labour Court, the punishment of removal was not appropriate and it accordingly substituted the penalty of retirement. Whether any monetary benefits flow or not from out of such substitution is not material for this Court. The discretion vested in the Labour Court under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was exercised by it and ordinarily this Court does not interfere in such cases while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:20-4-2009 MNR