THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11798 OF 2007 O R D E R: The 1st respondent (for short “the respondent”) is employed as a driver in the Bheemgal Depot of APSRTC. On 27.7.2005, he was on duty of driving the bus from Bheemgal to Armoor, via Velpur. Alleging that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent, a pedestrian was hit and succumbed to injuries, a charge sheet was served upon him. Simultaneously, Crime No.181 of 2005 was also registered by the P.S. Armoor. After conducting departmental enquiry, the 2nd petitioner passed an order, dated 10.11.2005, directing removal of the respondent from service. The remedies of appeal and review, availed by the respondent, were not successful. Thereupon, he ﬁled I.D.No.106 of 2005, before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”). The Labour Court passed the award, dated 30.6.2006, setting aside the order of removal, and directed reinstatement of the respondent, with continuity of service and back wages. The said award is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fact that the bus driven by the respondent hit a pedestrian leading to his death, was proved beyond any doubt, and even the Labour Court did not ﬁnd fault with the domestic enquiry. She contends that there was no justiﬁcation for the Labour Court, in directing reinstatement of the respondent, with full back wages. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the death of the pedestrian occurred, on account of the fact that he has fallen on the ground, in his attempt to cross the road, in a hurry. He further contends that the respondent has taken all the precautions, and the same are evident from the skid marks at the scene of occurrence. He further contends that the Labour Court has assigned cogent reasons, in support of its conclusions, and the discretion exercised under Section 11-A of the Act, particularly, when the charges were held not proved, cannot be interfered in a writ petition. The respondent had approached this court, by ﬁling W.P.No.25354 of 2005, feeling aggrieved by the order of removal. The writ petition was disposed of on 1.12.2005, leaving it open to him, to avail the remedy under the Act. The Labour Court did not ﬁnd any procedural defect in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, it has proceeded to discuss the matter on merits, and arrived at a conclusion that the death of the pedestrian was due to negligence on his part, and it cannot be attributed to any negligence, on the part of the respondent. This court is conscious of the fact that it cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court, under Section 11-A of the Act, except where such an exercise was found to be totally untenable and unconscionable. The ﬁndings of the fact recorded by Labour Court, particularly when disagreeing with those arrived at in the domestic enquiry, can, however, be examined, on the basis of the material on record. Here again, the scrutiny would be not on par with that of an appellate court, but in a very restricted sense. Where two views are possible, this court cannot set aside the one adopted by the Labour Court, simply because the other could have been preferred. There was no dispute that a pedestrian died in front of the bus. The respondent strenuously contended that the bus did not hit the pedestrian. In the domestic enquiry, the relevant record depicting the scene was taken into account, and ultimately, it was held that the respondent was negligent in driving the bus. While disagreeing with the ﬁnding recorded in the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court did undertake the same discussion. It made a reference to the panchanama and sketch prepared by the police. On a perusal of the same, it made the following observation: “It shows that the petitioner applied brakes to avoid the accident. The bus has a right side driving the steering; so the deceased crossed the road from right to left, i.e. from steering side to other side of the vehicle. If the bus hit the deceased, the deceased would have fallen in front of the bus and the bus would have run from the body of the deceased.” In the next paragraph of the award, the discussion of the Labour Court proceeded on these lines. “More over, the deceased crossed the road from left to right, without observing the movement of the bus and it also reveals that there is a road divider and the pedestrian crossed the road divider, without observing the bus.” The above observations are contrary to each other. The Labour Court itself was not clear as to whether the pedestrian was trying to cross the road from left to right or vice-versa. Its interpretation of the record is also not consistent and proper. Therefore, it was diﬃcult to set aside the ﬁnding of the enquiry report, on the basis of a reasoning, which is wavering in nature. Inferences were drawn by stretching the process of reasoning too long. Normally, the award deserves to be set aside, in view of the contradictions pointed above. Even if the eﬀorts made by the learned counsel for the respondent, to convince the court, are successful to certain extent, it would, at the most, result in remanding of the matter. This court is of the view that the matter can be given a quietus, by directing that the reinstatement of the respondent shall be with continuity of service and attendant benefits, without back wages. The writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside that part of the award, which awarded back wages, and upholding the award in other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 25th July 2008 PAN