THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.15701 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is the Driver in the 1st respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Warangal – I Depot. He was appointed on 1.7.1986 and on 1.5.1998, while he was driving the vehicle bearing no.AP 9Z-7425 on the route Goverdhanagiri – Darga, he caused the accident and three persons died and others sustained injuries. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and thereafter, he was removed from service by order dated 26.11.1998 and the departmental appeal filed by him was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he raised I.D.No.123 of 1999 on the file of Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court at Warangal. By award dated, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service without back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted that the accident occurred because, on the said date when the petitioner was driving the vehicle at Darga, one boy suddenly came from right side to the left side and therefore, the petitioner turned the vehicle to left side to avoid dashing of the boy and in that process, some persons who were sleeping on the edge of the road on the left side, were ran over by the vehicle and died. He contended that as the said persons were sleeping on the road, by keeping their heads on the edge, the bus ran over them and there was negligence on the part of the said persons, since they are not expected to sleep on the road and in order to avoid one accident, i.e., dashing the boy who came suddenly from right side, the petitioner caused this accident. As there is contributory negligence on the part of the said persons, which was also rightly noticed by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the petitioner is solely responsible and in these circumstances and as the petitioner is having unblemished service, the Tribunal is not justified in denying continuity of service. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned award and grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation submitted that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of negligence and the Tribunal also re-appreciating the same, confirmed the finding of the enquiry officer and however taking a lenient view, granted reinstatement without back wages and continuity of service and, hence the impugned award warrants no inference and that the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. From the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the factual position that the petitioner caused the accident and in the accident three persons died and that he is negligent in driving the bus. But it is to be noticed that the said persons were sleeping by keeping their heads on the edge of the road. Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal rightly found that the said persons who died in the accident, were negligent and contributed to the accident and that the petitioner was not completely responsible for the accident and that there is contributory negligence on the part of the said three persons. Further, as stated in the writ affidavit and as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1986 and has blemished service and this aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent - Corporation by filing any counter affidavit. Therefore, considering these circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal is not justified in denying the relief of continuity of service, by exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is granted continuity of service, without back wages. It is made clear that, as the petitioner was reinstated into service pursuant to the award of the Tribunal and retired on 31.12.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation, the relief of continuity of service, shall be calculated only for terminal benefits. 7. By modifying the impugned award, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ------------------------------ -- 14—02—2011