THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27028 of 2007 Dated: 03.06.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hanamkonda Bus Depot, Warangal District. .. Petitioner. And The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.73 of 2006. Petitioner is the management and 2nd respondent is the workman. It appears, while the 2nd respondent, who was working as driver in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was conducting a bus on 07.02.1991, on the route Desaipet-Kazipet, the bus met with an accident near Alankar theatre, as a result of which one cyclist died on the spot. Thereupon, he was issued with a charge sheet and basing on the report of the preliminary enquiry, the management by order dated 27.08.1991 imposed a punishment of deferment of annual grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent preferred appeal and it was rejected on merits. Later on, the workman raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and on failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Government and the Government, in turn, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal for adjudication of the following issues: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hanamkonda is justified in deferring the annual increment of Sri M.Balaiah, Driver, E-43572 for a period of two years which shall have effect on his future increment (with cumulative effect) ordered in office order No.T2 (2)/91-HNK dt.27.8.1991?” It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that he took all necessary precautions, but the cyclist dashed to the bus and succumbed to the injuries, that the criminal case registered against him ended in acquittal, which indicates that he has not driven the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner, and that he sustained heavy monetary loss due to the punishment imposed on him. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the management denying the material allegations made by the workman. It was stated that the workman-2nd respondent has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation and dashed the cyclist and that acquittal of the workman in the criminal case registered against him for causing the present accident will not have any effect on the result of disciplinary proceedings. Before the Labour Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman. On behalf of the management, though no oral evidence was adduced, but documents Exs.M1 to M13 were marked. The Labour Court, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations made against the workman and relevant evidence placed before the Court, held that the punishment of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect imposed on the workman is not justified and thereby by the impugned award dated 18.04.2007 modified the said punishment to that of deferment of increment for a period of two years, but without cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. By order dated 27.08.1991 passed by the management, the workman was imposed with a major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, without conducting a detailed enquiry. Even the Labour Court found that no domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against the workman. It is a settled law that major punishments cannot be imposed without conducting a detailed enquiry. The Labour Court, having found that only preliminary enquiry was conducted in the case on hand and no domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against the 2nd respondent-workman, was right in modifying the order dated 27.08.1991 as stated supra, by the impugned award dated 18.04.2007. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.06.2010 v v