IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 380 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 02/02/2005 in WP NO : 21354 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 APSRTC reptd., by its Depot Manager, Hyderabad-I, Depot, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager-I, APSRTC, Rangareddy Region, J.B.S.Gowliguda, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANTS AND Sri Basheer Ahmed, s/o Sri Alla Bakash, r/o H.No.1-1-74/N, Mothinagar, Mahabubnagar-I. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Appeal No. 380 of 2005 Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The appellants-Corporation filed the present writ appeal against the order dated 02.02.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 21354 of 1999. The respondent herein was employed as driver in the appellants-Corporation. While he was driving the RTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 118 on 23.04.1996 on Madras – Hyderabad route at about 2.20 hours near Chennur (12 KMs away from Cuddapah), he caused fatal accident resulting in death of a minor girl aged about 8 years. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was issued with a charge sheet dated 08.05.1996 stating that the said act of the respondent constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(ix) (a) (xxi) and (xxxi) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. After conducting regular enquiry, the respondent was removed from service, by order dated 30.10.1996. As against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, by order dated 26.05.1997, modified the order of dismissal to that of fresh appointment as a driver. Thereupon, the respondent filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, and the Labour Court, by award dated 08.03.1999 passed in I.D. No. 58 of 1998, set aside the order of appointment of the respondent herein as ‘fresher’, and ordered to reinstate the respondent into service with full backwages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the APSRTC filed WP No.21354 of 1999, which was dismissed. Against which, this writ appeal has been filed contending that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and the Labour Court ought to have relied on Ex.M7, the statement of R. Seethamma, said to have been recorded by the Circle Inspector during preliminary enquiry, and there was no justification in not accepting the enquiry report, which led to the removal of the workman. The undisputed facts are that for the accident occurred on 23.04.1996, a criminal case was registered against the respondent herein under Section 304-A of IPC and tried as C.C. No. 150 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, and the said criminal case ended in acquittal. The evidence adduced before the Criminal Court goes to show that there was no any rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent-driver and the vehicle was going very slowly and there were no any skid marks on the road and the girl was not hit on the front side of the bus and the driver was having a clear control over the bus and speed and he stopped the bus as soon as when the girl touched by the side of the vehicle. Apart from that, the appellate authority, having felt that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent herein and keeping in view the unblemished service rendered by him for a period of 18 years, has ordered to appoint him as ‘fresher’. To show that there was no negligent act on the part of the driver, it is just and proper to extract para 8 (viii) of the award of the Labour Court, which reads thus. “The girl was with Seetamma and both of them attempted to cross the road and after they have crossed half portion of the road, having found a tractor coming in the opposite direction confused themselves and leaving Seetamma the girl suddenly ran towards left side and in spite the petitioner taking the bus to the left side on seeing the girl running suddenly towards her back, he could not avert the accident and in spite of the fact that, he was going at low speed, he could not avert the girl touching the bus. Had the petitioner been going at normal high speed and caused the accident with lack of anticipation, he would have ran over both Jyoti as well as Seetamma. The presence of Seetamma on the road and falling of the girl by the side of the bus would clearly go to show that, there is nothing the petitioner could do to avert the accident. Further, it is not a case where the girl Jyoti was run over by the tyres of the bus and there was crush and she died then and there itself. Therefore, the girl was not hit on the front side of the bus and the two injuries spoken to by Seetamma present on the body of Jyoti would go to show that, they would have been caused only when side portion of the bus came into contact of the girl. These circumstances would clearly go toshow that the petitioner acted with clear anticipation and took the bus towards left side driving it in full controllable speed, and there is no possibility of inference to be drawn that, there was rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner.” The entire oral and documentary evidence has been re- appreciated by the learned Single Judge of this Court, and he has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Corporation upholding the award of the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submits that the Labour Court ought not to have granted backwages, while ordering to reinstate the respondent into service. The respondent-workman was removed from service on 30.10.1996 and his appeal was allowed within five months and, thereafter, he was reinstated into service. However, we are of the opinion that when there was no any fault on the part of the driver and the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle was not at all established, there cannot be any denial of backwages. The Tribunal, while ordering to reinstate the respondent herein into service, has rightly awarded backwages, which was affirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court, and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Date: 05.03.2009 Nsr