HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6965 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner, a driver with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.83 of 1996 dated 26.03.1997, to the extent he was denied back wages for a period of more than two years and to two increments which he would otherwise have been entitled to during this period. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was driving bus No. AP9Z 5647 on 03.04.1994 and, when he crossed Gulzar House within the limits of Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad, passengers asked him to stop the bus and, when he alighted therefrom, he found a person lying on the road to the left side of the bus. A criminal case was lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving causing the death of a cyclist. A departmental enquiry was also initiated resulting in the petitioner being removed from service on 08.11.1994. The petitioner was, thereafter, acquitted by the Criminal Court on 30.12.1996. PWs.1 and 2 i.e. the parents of the deceased, PW.3 the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and PW.4 the de facto complainant, were examined. On the ground that there were no eye-witnesses to the accident, the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court. The Labour Court took note of the petitioner’s acquittal as also his previous record which did not reflect any serious punishment as having been imposed except recovery of Rs.75/- and a warning letter for having caused damage to the bus; as also to his submission that, as it was night time, he could observe the injured cyclist only after stopping the bus on the cries of the passengers; the cyclist, after loosing his balance while riding the cycle, had himself contributed to the accident; therefore some amount of negligence could be attributed to the driver of the bus for not taking necessary precautions to ensure that the accident did not occur; and, since he had already been out of employment for more than two years, he would not be entitled to the increments and back wages for the said two year period. The Labour Court directed the petitioner’s reinstatement into service. Before this Court Sri Vedula Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case was itself proof that there was no negligence on his part; the Labour Court had merely surmised in holding that some amount of negligence must be attributed to the driver of the bus; and, in any event, the punishment of denial of two increments and back wages for the two year period was grossly disproportionate to the charge held established. On the other hand, Sri K.Madhav Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, would submit that the fact that the cyclist had died under the bus is not in dispute; the Criminal Court had acquitted the petitioner only on the ground that there were no eye-witnesses to the accident; and the Labour Court was wholly justified in holding that some amount of negligence should be attributed to the driver for the death of the cyclist. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the punishment imposed was lenient, and did not call for interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the degree of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt, in proceedings before the Labour Court it is based on preponderance of probabilities. The fact that a cyclist had died, on his falling under the bus being driven by the petitioner is not in dispute. The accident is said to have occurred at around 10.30 P.M. near Gulzar House within the limits of the Hyderabad City. It is not as if it was a deserted road which was totally dark resulting in the occurrence of the accident. The death of the cyclist who was found lying under the bus, on preponderance of probabilities, would certainly justify the Labour Court’s conclusion that some amount of negligence can be attributed to the driver of the bus. In certiorari proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal nor would it re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the Tribunal. It is not for this Court to substitute its views for that of the Tribunal and it is only when there is an error apparent on the face of record would this Court interfere. The finding of the Labour Court that some negligence can be attributed to the driver cannot, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, be said to be perverse. The punishment imposed of stoppage of two increments and denial of back wages for two year period, viewed in the light of the fact that a cyclist had died under the bus is, undoubtedly, lenient. While interference by the Labour Court in such matters may well be a case of misplaced sympathy, in the absence of any challenge by the APSRTC to the award of the Labour Court, the award does not necessitate interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.12.2010 usd