HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 19926 of 2005 DATED: 09.02.2011 Between: V.S. Rao .. Petitioner And 1. Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad .. Respondents 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC JUDGMENT:- This writ petition is directed against the Award dated 24.04.2001 made in I.D. No. 126 of 1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, wherein the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) seeking to set aside the removal order dated 15.07.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner afresh as a driver while denying all other benefits. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the month of March, 1996 in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While so, on 08.02.1997, when he was conducting service of the bus bearing No. AEZ 4344 on the route Khammam to Madhira, an accident occurred in which a cyclist died. Therefore, the petitioner was charge-sheeted with one charge. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the 2nd respondent- Depot Manager, ordered a detailed enquiry, and submitted a report holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled against him, and the disciplinary authority, based on the report, passed an order of removal from service on 15.07.1997. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal and also a revision petition, but both the cases were dismissed. Having no option, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.126 of 1998 seeking to set aside the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct him to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not properly conducted, and in fact, there was no accident whatsoever. The cyclist fell himself and died. The bus driven by the petitioner neither touched the cycle nor touched the body of the deceased. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager before the Labour Court, the allegations made by the petitioner were denied and it is stated that the accident was reported to the police of Madhira Police Station, who registered a case in Cr.No.7 of 1997 under Section 304-A IPC. The Depot Manager and Senior Traffic Inspector, Madhira Depot inspected the accident spot and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Further, the statements of the driver and the witnesses were recorded and preliminary enquiry report was submitted to the 2nd respondent fixing the responsibility of the petitioner for the accident. Therefore, charge sheet was issued and since the misconduct on the part of the petitioner was proved, he was removed from service. On behalf of the petitioner-workman, nobody was examined, but Ex.W1 was marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, nobody was examined, but Exs.M1 to M21 were marked. After considering the entire material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that by re-appreciating the record in the domestic enquiry and the perusal of the judgment in C.C. No. 67 of 1997 in Ex.W1 pronounced on appreciation of the evidence of the eye-witnesses for the accident, the Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred on 09.02.1997 was not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner, and accordingly, set aside the findings of the enquiry officer against the petitioner on the charge. However, the Tribunal, while setting aside the removal order directed the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager to reinstate the petitioner into service as daily wage driver afresh and further held that the petitioner is not entitled to continuity of service or back-wages or any other benefit. Challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner-workman has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that once the charges are not proved and the petitioner was not held responsible for the death of the cyclist, and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner, and even though it was held in the criminal case that the petitioner was found not guilty of the charged offence, the Labour Court ought not to have denied the petitioner’s continuity of service or back-wages and other benefits. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the Labour Court itself, while exercising its powers under Section 1!-A of the Act, granted relief of fresh appointment, and the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not deserve any further relief as prayed for, and no interference can be made by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest considerations to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. Paragraph 13 of the Award clearly indicates that the Labour Court found that the petitioner was not responsible for the accident and there was no negligence on his part. In view of this observation, I hold that the Labour Court ought not to have denied continuity of service if not other benefits. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has committed a gross error in not properly invoking its powers vested under Section 11-A of the Act in granting relief of continuity of service at least, if not, other benefits. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Labour Court to that of reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any back-wages and without any attendant benefits. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 9th February, 2011 bcj