THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4436 OF 2005 Dated : 09.04.2010 Between : The Depot Manager ….. Petitioner a n d Ch.Narasimha & another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4436 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 02.06.2004 made in I.D.No.231 of 2001 by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the first respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated into service with 50% of back wages and continuity of service but without attendant benefits for the break period. Petitioner is the management of A.P.S.R.T.C. and respondent No.1 is the workman. It appears, the first respondent while driving the bus bearing No.AP10 Z 3080 on the route from Hyderabad to Kodumur met with an accident on 18.01.2000 at 11.30 p.m. causing death of the scooterist and injuring the pillion rider, who emerged from the bushes, on the track road, to the main road. The first respondent was charge sheeted and an enquiry was conducted. After conducting a detailed enquiry, he was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, seeking the relief of reinstatement into service with full back wages and other attendant benefits. The case of respondent No.1 before the Labour Court was that while he was operating the bus bearing No.AP10 Z 3080 on 18.01.2000 the bus met with a fatal accident at 11.30 p.m. causing instantaneous death of a scooterist by name K.Bandi Reddy and injuries to the pillion rider K.Yadaiah. The Senior Traffic Inspector arrived on the accident spot, noted the features of the accident and taken a rough sketch. Police also filed a case in crime No.10 of 2007 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. But, according to the respondent, enquiry was not properly conducted and all the witnesses did not attribute anything serious to the first respondent and, in fact, the scooterist himself was negligent and it is an unfortunate accident. Therefore, he sought for setting side the removal order passed by the management. The petitioner-management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the workman. On behalf of the workman and the management, none were examined. However, Exs.M.1 to M.32 were marked on behalf of the management. After detailed consideration of the material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that absolutely there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with 50% of back wages, continuity of service but without attendant benefits for the break period. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the management. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that the accident is admitted and death of the scooterist and injuries received by the pillion rider are also admitted. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and he is not entitled for such relief as granted by the Labour Court. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent-workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and further stated that, in fact, the first respondent was entitled for entire back wages as sought for. However, in its wisdom, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with 50% of back wages and continuity of service without attendant benefits. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order. The material made available on record would show that there is no negligence on the part of the driver in causing accident. In this context, it is suffice to notice para Nos.13, 14 and 15 of the impugned award: “13) The service conductor in his preliminary statement Ex.M.9 submitted before the Senior Traffic Inspector stated that there was narrow B.T. road that as one side on left there were bushes and the driver had not observed the scooterist who suddenly came on the road, that the driver applied the brakes but unfortunately dashed the bus. 14) As stated supra the statement of the Senior Traffic Inspector given under Ex.M.20, the statement of service conductor given under Ex.M.21 and the statement of the petitioner given under Ex.M.22 all before the enquiry officer do not through light that the petitioner herein drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident as a result of it alone scooterist died and also pillion rider sustained injuries. 15) The circumstances at the place of accident as per Ex.M.7 reveal apparently that in the dark night the scooterist with his pillion rider came from an un-even rough road probably a cart track and entered into the bus road which is also a narrow road with width of 12 ½ feet on either sides of which there were bushes and such being the case the petitioner would not have expected that all of sudden arrival of the scooterist on to the road the side of bushes and in the circumstances he also applied sudden brakes to avert the accident and due to application of sudden brake there were also tire skid marks occurred to a length 18 feet.” From the above it is clear that none of the witnesses of the Management spoke any word against the driver to show that there was rashness or negligence on his part. This appears to be an unfortunate accident. The bus was moving on a narrow way. In both sides there were bushes. The scooterist emerged from the side road and came on to the main road on which the bus was proceeding and it was 11.30 in the night when the accident occurred. Thus, no negligence can be attributed in a case of this nature. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, it appears that the Labour Court in its anxiety has also held that in case the management fails to pay 50% of the back wages to the workman within one month, the workman shall be entitled for 12% interest on 50% of the back wages, which is not contemplated in Service Law. Therefore, that part of the impugned award granting 12% interest on 50% back wages is set aside. Subject to above modification in the impugned order, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J 9th April, 2010 SUR