HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16679 OF 2002 . DATED 30TH September, 2011. BETWEEN M. Pochaiah …Petitioner And The Labour Court-II, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad, and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16679 of 2002 ORDER: Challenging the Award dated 30.11.1998 passed by the first respondent-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No. 202 of 1993, denying the continuity of service and back wages, the petitioner- workman filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner-workman was appointed as a Driver in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( for short ‘the APSRTC’) in the month of February 1980. While so, he was charged sheeted on 22.10.1988 on the following charges: 1. For having driven the vehicle bearing No.7994 in negligent manner with high speed resulting in met with an accident with a stationery lorry MTL 1910. 2. For having involved in an accident with private lorry bearing No. MTL 1910 resulting in injuries to 33 passengers on the spot which indicates the lack of anticipation and rash driving. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner-workman, the respondent-APSRTC conducted an enquiry and found the petitioner- workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. Basing on the same, the petitioner-workman was removed from service by order dated 7.9.1989. The appeal and review thereafter filed by the petitioner ended in dismissal. Later the petitioner-workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the first respondent-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 202 of 1993. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner-workman was examined as WW.1 and did not adduce any documentary evidence. On behalf of the respondent- APSRTC, MWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M1 to M8 were got marked. The Labour Court upon consideration of the evidence adduced before it, and taking into consideration the length of service put in by the petitioner-workman, modified the order of dismissal to that of reinstatement in service as a fresh recruit, without continuity of service and back wages. Hence the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought to have rejected the sketch alleged to have been prepared on 14.10.1998 after lapse of six days from the date of accident, which was prepared neither in the presence of the petitioner nor anybody connected to the accident. He further submitted that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of MW.2 and therefore his evidence cannot be relied on. He contended that the past service of the petitioner does not constitute any material to the case on hand and hence the award passed by the Labour Court relying on his past service is liable to be set aside. He asserted that as he was not employed any- where till his reinstatement, the petitioner-workman is entitled to back wages once reinstatement is ordered. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-APSRTC while reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner-workman drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, on account of which, 33 passengers travelling in the said bus were injured besides damage to the vehicle. He further submitted that the Labour Court took a lenient view and modified the punishment of removal to that of reinstatement and hence there are no valid grounds to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court. Perused the case file. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-workman while driving the bus bearing No. AAZ 7994 on 8.10.1988 from Zaheerabad to Hyderabad caused the accident in question near Bhudera cross roads. It was the case of the petitioner that when he was about to cross the lorry bearing No. MTL 1910 with a precautionary measure by blowing horn, the driver of the said lorry suddenly stopped the bus projecting the rear side of the lorry on the road, as a result, the left front side portion of the bus was damaged. However it was the case of the respondent-APSRTC that the petitioner-workman drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry at the road side, as a consequence, 33 passengers were injured besides the damage to the bus. The direct witness to the accident, who travelled in the bus at the relevant point of time was examined as MW. 2. He deposed in the same terms as that of the case of the respondent-APSRTC. In his cross- examination, he stated that the petitioner-workman was driving the bus at the speed about 60 KMs per hour and dashed the stationed lorry on the left side of road margin facing towards Hyderabad. The preliminary enquiry also revealed that the petitioner- workman drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The sketch map marked as Ex.M.1 prepared by M.W.1 discloses that the accident was caused by the petitioner while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The objection taken by the petitioner that the sketch was prepared by MW.1 in his absence and his signatures on the same were obtained subsequently and as such the same shall have to be eschewed from consideration, cannot be countenanced. Apart from the above, the law is well settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal and find out sufficiency/insufficiency of evidence in support of the charge. Only when it is a case of no evidence, this Court may interfere with the order of punishment. The petitioner failed to bring his case within the purview of such grounds for interference and therefore the finding of the Labour Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it cannot be said to be without any basis. For the foregoing discussion, the contentions of the petitioner on this aspect do not deserve consideration. It is well settled that the past service of the petitioner, which was neither marked nor the subject matter of dispute in question cannot be taken into consideration in awarding the punishment to the petitioner. In the award impugned, the Labour Court only made a reference in respect of the similar charge and it did not reach conclusion based on the past service of the petitioner. So far as the next ground is concerned, the law is well settled that the High Court cannot substitute a punishment unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The Labour Court having taken a lenient view in the matter, modified the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner to that of reinstatement in service as a fresh recruit. The said relief itself is more than a sufficient relief having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.. With regard to grant of back wages, it may be noticed that normally once the order of termination of service of an employee is set aside, the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement to reinstatement in service of an employee does not necessarily result in the inevitable consequence of payment of full or partial back wages. In J.K.Synthetics Limited Vs. K.P.Agarwal {(2007) 2 SCC 433}, the Apex Court held that the grant of back wages is no longer considered to be an automatic or inevitable consequence of a direction of reinstatement and that the grant of back wages cannot be a mechanical. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had categorically mentioned in his petition filed before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed after he was removed from service. Therefore, the said contention merits no consideration. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, which is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 30TH September, 2011. Msnro