HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 20794 OF 2002 . DATED 13th September, 2011. BETWEEN R.Prasad Rao …Petitioner And The Presiding Officer Industrial Labour Court-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 20794 of 2002 ORDER: Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service and deferment of four annual increments, the workman in I.D. No. 216 of 1999 on the file of the Industrial Labour Court-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the second respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation by order dated 1.07.1989. He was removed from service by order dated 10.02.1999 on the charge that he drove the vehicle No.AP.1Z- 2740 in rash and negligent manner at a high speed on 15.07.1998 thereby he caused the death of a pedestrian. The appeal preferred by him against the removal order was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, he approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned Award dated 04.03.2002, the first respondent-Labour Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, set aside the termination order and directed to reinstate the petitioner/workman as fresh appointment after due medical test and further to defer four annual increments after issuing such fresh appointment. In the counter filed on behalf of the second respondent-Corporation, it is stated that though the causing of the accident by the petitioner due to his rash and negligent was held proved, the Labour Court took a lenient view and directed his reinstatement in service as fresh appointment and further deferred his four annual increments. It is contended that no interference is warranted with the impugned award of the Labour Court, because it is passed considering the evidence placed on record, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court did not exercise jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 11-A of the Act in proper perspective. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and opposed to the evidence on record. He contended that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court failed to take into consideration the statements of the eye witnesses to the alleged accident. He asserted that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time at normal speed at 40 KM per hour cautiously and as such the accident cannot be attributed to the petitioner alleging that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He lastly argued that the Labour Court ought to have awarded continuity of service with all service and monetary benefits, but it committed a grave error in directing reinstatement of the petitioner afresh and also deferment of four annual increments together. Perused the case file. As can be seen from the record, it may be noticed that the petitioner, who was working as driver with the second respondent-APSRTC, drove the bus on 15.7.1998 on the route Hemavathi to Ananthapur and thereby caused accident. According to the petitioner, there was no rash and negligence on his part in driving the vehicle. On the contrary, the preliminary report disclosed that the bus moved 50 feet ahead after hitting the pedestrian and the same is reflected from the skid marks at the spot of accident. Therefore, it is established that the bus had been driven in high speed at the time of accident. Even the passengers who travelled in the said bus at the relevant point of time in their evidence tendered on behalf of the management of the second respondent categorically deposed that the bus had been driven in high speed. Had the bus been driven at normal speed, the alleged accident could have been averted. Hence, the Labour Court rightly held that the vehicle had been driven in rash and negligent manner, at high speed, which resulted in causing the death of the so called pedestrian. As regards the modification of the punishment of removal imposed against the petitioner by the Labour Court is concerned, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause accident and hence the termination of the petitioner was not justified. The Labour Court having absolved the petitioner of guilt of causing accident, and considering the fact that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving, modified the punishment of removal from service to that of reinstatement in service as fresh appointment. However, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner had caused financial loss to the Corporation in causing the death of pedestrian due to negligent driving of the bus, the Labour Court thought it appropriate to defer four annual increments while directing reinstatement as afore-stated. The Labour Court exercised its discretion judiciously in modifying the punishment imposed on the petitioner. It may be noticed that the APSRTC did not choose to challenge the Award of the Labour Court in so far as the relief granted in favour of the petitioner is concerned. The Labour Court while exercising its discretion took a lenient view in modifying the punishment directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service as fresh appointment by deferring four increments. That itself is a more than sufficient relief granted in favour of the petitioner/workman by the Labour Court. Merely because the Labour Court having directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with deferment four annual increments, it cannot be said that the same amounted to imposing two punishments for the same offence. Considering the sole fact that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the accident in which the deceased died, the Labour Court took a lenient view and directed his reinstatement in service afresh. Owing to the fact that the Corporation suffered financially in view of the death of the so called pedestrian, the Labour Court felt it appropriate to defer four increments as a measure of penalty. In that view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 13th September, 2011. Msnro