THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2224 of 2005 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-A.P.State Road Transport Corporation. 2. This writ petition is directed against an Award made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.26 of 2002, dated 29.9.2004, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”) seeking to set aside the order dated 16.7.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent Corporation removing the petitioner-workman from service of the Corporation was rejected. 3. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation on daily wage basis in the month of October, 1996. While so, when he was driving the bus bearing No.AEZ 2669 on route Wyra to Nemali, on 11.1.1997 the bus met with an accident, which resulted in the death of 4 persons and injuring 9 others. The Joint Accident Committee submitted a report, prima-facie, holding the petitioner responsible for the accident and he was also found rash and negligent in driving the bus at the time of accident. On the basis of the said report, the following charges were framed: 1. For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ 2669 on 11.1.1997, on the route Wyra-Nemali, in rash & negligent manner, in high speed with lack of anticipation, due to which the vehicle AEZ 2669 met with an accident by dashing against the Cement Chapta, and the persons sitting on the ‘Chapta, resulting 4 persons died 9 other persons were grievously injured who were sitting on the Chapta, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix)(a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For causing heavy damages to the vehicle No.AEZ 2669 on 11.1.1997, due to the accident occurred at KG Siripuram Village on the route Wyra – Nemali, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xiii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory, therefore, the disciplinary authority ordered for an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, on its own appreciation as well as on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be removed from service. After completing the formalities, such as issue of show cause notice etc., the disciplinary authority passed order dated 16.7.1997 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.26 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Warangal, under Section 2(A)2 of the Act. 5. Before the Labour Court, neither parties have led any evidence, oral or documentary. However, on the basis of the record available, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent Corporation was proper and valid and further on the basis of the evidence it found that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the Labour Court refused to interfere with the removal order dated 16.7.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent Corporation and accordingly the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court has stepped into the shoes of a mechanic and went on analysing each and every aspect of speed and lowering down the gear etc., which is not the job of the Labour Court. He also contended that the Labour Court further failed to see that there was no Fitness Certificate for the accident vehicle at the time when it was handed over to him for being driven on the said route. In fact, it is only due to failure of the breaks and because of the mechanical break down, the accident occurred, though the bus was moving at a speed of 20 kms per hour in the middle of the town. 7. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that there is no Fitness Certificate issued by the motor vehicles authority nor there is any evidence to show that there was a mechanical failure i.e., failure of the breaks, except the self-serving statement of the petitioner. The petitioner had put in hardly 90 days of service before his termination and the Department has conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and found that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner, 4 passengers were killed and 9 others were injured and the bus was damaged extensively. 8. Under those circumstances, the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court cannot be said to have come to a wrong conclusion holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and removing him from the service of the Corporation, nor it can be said that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned Award, dated 29.9.2004, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 03.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2224 of 2005 03.06.2010 (Msr)