* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR + WRIT PETITION No.18047 of 2001 % Dated: 02.12.2010 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Warangal Depot and another ……………..Petitioners Vs. J.M.Reddy and another ……………Respondents . ! Counsel for the Petitioner : P.Sreedhar ^Counsel for the Respondents: - <Gist: >Head Note: ? Citations: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18047 OF 2001 DT.02.12.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Warangal Depot and another ……………..Petitioners Vs. J.M.Reddy and another ……………Respondents O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed challenging the award, dated 09.04.2001 in I.D.No.109 of 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Warangal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent was working as driver in A.P.S.R.T.C., Janagaon Depot from 1987 and that his services were regularized with effect from 01.01.1990. On 10.10.1996 while the first respondent was driving the bus AP 10Z: 439 from Tirupati to Janagaon and when the bus reached Seetharampet Village, a car bearing No.AP 26 D:1279 came from opposite direction and it is alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver-first respondent, the accident occurred and the driver of the car died. The police, Yerpad police station registered a case in Cr.No.208 of 1996 and after conducting the enquiry, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.286 of 1996 were initiated against the first respondent. The petitioners herein initiated departmental enquiry and in the domestic enquiry, the first respondent was found to be responsible for the accident and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the misconduct was proved against the first respondent. Basing on the enquiry report, after following due procedure, the first respondent was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On behalf of the first respondent, Ex.W-1 was marked and on behalf of the petitioners herein Exs.M-1 to M-26 were marked. Basing on the documentary evidence adduced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein failed to prove the charges leveled against the first respondent and that the alleged misconduct was not proved and accordingly, passed an award setting aside the removal and directing to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, with full back wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred this writ petition, mainly contending that the first respondent was responsible for the accident and that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and that one of the passenger was examined and who categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. P.Sreedhar, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and reached to incorrect conclusions. It is settled law that there is no need to re-appreciate the evidence, unless it is pointed out that the findings of the lower court are perverse and not based on evidence. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has considered all the aspects in right perspective. Admittedly, the first respondent was found not guilty in C.C.No.286 of 1996 by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate. Though the finding of a criminal court is not binding on labour court, but the fact remains that the first respondent was found not guilty by the criminal court. More over, the Labour Court has considered that the petitioners herein failed to adduce any evidence of the persons, who traveled in the car. More over, it was also found that there were skid marks of the bus noticed by the mediator at the time of observation of scene of offence and that there were no skid marks of the car and the skid marks of the bus reveals that the first respondent tried to avoid the accident and that he had applied brakes and that the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the workman categorically stated that the driver of the car was rash and negligent in driving the car and that the car came at high speed and dashed against the bus. I do not see any perversity in the findings of the Labour Court. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR J., Dt.02.12.2010 L.R.Copy tjs