THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27463 of 2007 Dated: 8-7-2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Warangal-I …Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal and another …Respondents Oral order: This writ petition has been preferred by the Depot Manager of the APSRTC, Warangal-I Depot, questioning the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No. 5 of 2005, which arose out of a reference made by the State Government in terms of Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 2nd respondent-workman was a driver attached to the APSRTC. On 6-3-1996 he was one of the two drivers booked for operating the service between Hanamkonda to Bombay. At about 1930 hours on that day while the 2nd respondent was driving the vehicle in question, an accident had taken place at Shakur village, Latur District of Maharastra State. When the 2nd respondent has been removed from the driver’s seat with the efforts of the passers-by and the driver of a Tractor-Trailor, which was involved in the head-on collision with the bus operated by him, the 2nd respondent was immediately shifted to a Government Hospital at Shakur and subsequently therefrom to another Govt. Hospital at Ambashpur and therefrom to the APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. Both his legs got crushed and got fractured. However, it is the 2nd respondent who has intimated the accident to the Depot Manager. In view of the extensive damage suffered by the bus driven by the 2nd respondent- workman he was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. In the disciplinary enquiry the statement of the second driver of the bus was noticed and the report submitted by the RTO, Latur has also been taken note of. However, the 2nd respondent has been penalised by deferring one of his annual grade increments with cumulative effect, apart from proposing to recover a sum of Rs.1000/- in ten monthly instalments as part of recovering the damages sustained by the Corporation. When he preferred an appeal, the Appellate authority modified the punishment to the extent of waiving recovery of Rs.1000/- towards damages, but however confirmed the order of punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. On the ground that the service record of the 2nd respondent-workman has been flashed with several instances of imposition of minor punishment of stoppage of increments for the accidents caused to one bus or the other of the Corporation, the punishment imposed against the 2nd respondent was sought to be sustained before the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court has specifically noticed that Ex.M2 has recorded a statement of fact disclosing that as per the position and placement of the Tractor on the road at the accident site it is the driver of the Tractor who is responsible for causing the accident and they have also estimated the damages to the vehicle as Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.7,500/- has been paid by the Tractor driver in that respect. Therefore, the Labour Court had opined that it is not the 2nd respondent-workman who is negligent in driving the bus of the Corporation but it is the rash and negligent manner of driving of the Tractor and Trailor by its driver who is coming in the opposite direction, that has resulted in the head-on collision between the bus and the Tractor causing injuries to the 2nd respondent-workman. The Labour Court has also noticed that in Ex.M4 statement, the second driver of the bus has stated that he was asleep at the time of accident and consequently he is not in know of the fact that led to the accident. Interestingly the second driver has not mentioned about any injuries sustained by him due to the accident of the bus. From the statement of the second driver of the bus, no useful information can be gathered to find the 2nd respondent-workman to be guilty of any carelessness or negligence on his part, nor can it be deduced that the second driver of the bus had sustained any such injuries in the accident. On an overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court had no hesitation to come to a finding that the 2nd respondent- workman could not be alleged to be negligent or rash in driving the bus in question and that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver who is coming in the opposite direction. Perhaps the 2nd respondent could have been accused of lacking imagination of the possibility of negligence on the part of the Tractor driver who is coming in the opposite direction but he cannot be penalised for causing the accident to the bus or the damage sustained by the bus in the process. Therefore, the Labour Court has found no hesitation to set aside the order dated 20-10-1996 passed by the Depot Manager imposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect against the 2nd respondent- workman. I have heard Sri Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Corporation and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman. The learned standing counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent-workman’s record of service would vouch to the fact that he has been penalised many a times in the past for his negligent manner of driving the bus and further the facts which have caused the accident in question have not been properly or carefully assessed by the Labour Court before it arrived at a conclusion that he is not guilty of the charge levelled against him. Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar would strenuously contend that if the 2nd respondent employee has taken care and employed all the necessary degree of skill in driving the bus and if he is on the left side half of the road and if the driver of the Tractor which is coming in the opposite direction is so careless and negligent in driving the Tractor and if he caused the accident, it is not the 2nd respondent who can be penalised for causing the accident but the driver of the Tractor alone has got to be faulted. Further the impact was so grave that it is the 2nd respondent who has sustained grievous injuries to both his legs as he sustained fractures. But yet he has taken care to intimate the Depot Manager about the accident that had taken place immediately. Inspite of the adverse circumstances which have been presented in such a short span of time, the 2nd respondent driver has taken all necessary precautions to minimise the damage and also minimise the risk to the passengers of the bus which is visible from the fact that least number of passengers sustained injuries in the process apart from himself sustaining a grievous injury. I have perused the award passed by the Labour Court and the material which have been placed before it. Stoppage of an annual grade increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment. The consequence of its impact can travel beyond the tenure of employment of an employee. Therefore great care and caution should have been deployed by the disciplinary authority before imposing such a major punishment. In the instant case no passenger or no eye witness has been examined to vouch to the allegations levelled against the 2nd respondent employee. On the contrary Ex.M2 drawn by the RTO Latur, Maharastra State would disclose that it is the driver of the Tractor who is responsible for causing the accident. It is not in dispute that the Tractor and Trailor was coming in the opposite direction to the bus driven by the 2nd respondent employee. If a driver employs all necessary care and caution and manoeuvres the bus in such a way that it receives least impact in a head-on collision with another vehicle, such a driver cannot still be accused of being negligent while performing his duties, all because of damage sustained to the Bus. In the face of the material that has been marshalled before the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court, it will not be possible for one to arrive at a conclusion that it is the 2nd respondent- driver of the bus of the APSRTC who is wholly responsible to have caused the accident. On the other hand, if the driver of the Tractor coming in the opposite direction, were to be negligent totally and he has abandoned all care and caution while driving the said vehicle, he has got to be blamed but not the 2nd respondent-employee. I am satisfied that this is not a case where the findings recorded by the Labour Court can be characterised as perverse findings. Material on record would lend support to the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court and hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.500-00 payable to the 2nd respondent-workman. __________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 8th July, 2010 GRR