THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17417 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Award of the Labour Court dated 11-05-1999 passed in I.D. No.29 of 1993. 2. The first respondent was working as a cleaner in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Bhimavaram Depot. On 15th December, 1995, there was an attempt on the life of the Depot Manager by pouring acid by one, Mr.B.Saptharaju, who was also working as a cleaner. With reference to the said incident, on a complaint filed by the Depot manager, Bhimavaram, a criminal case was registered against B.Saptharaju and one Mr.V.Venkateswar Rao on the ground that the said person has instigated Saptharaju for pouring acid. With reference to the above said incident alleging that first respondent also conspired with the common intention and provoked said Saptharaju to attempt murder by pouring acid on the Depot Manager, by name, Sri N.Satyanarayana, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent. The charge framed against the first respondent reads as under: “For having conspired with a common intention and provocated Sri B.Saptharaju, E.87416, Cleaner of Jangareddygudem Depot to attempt murder by throwing acid on Sri M.Satyanarayana, DM/BVRM on 15-12-1985 at about 19.15 hours while he was walking to his residence from depot garage along with his associate (named above allegation which comes under misconduct as per Regulation 28 (xv) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. When the first respondent denied the charge, based on the Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer, punishment of stoppage of the annual grade increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect was ordered by the disciplinary authority and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority on the appeal filed by the first respondent. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the Government for adjudication vide G.O. Rt. No.156 dated 23-01-1993. The Industrial Tribunal by the impugned award directed to restore the increment withheld by the disciplinary authority. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 5. In this Writ Petition it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the petitioner corporation that without recording any valid reasons, the dispute raised by the first respondent was answered in favour of the workman. 6. Further, on the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that in this case the accusation was only against Saptharaju and one another person by name Venkateswara Rao against whom prosecution was launched. It is submitted that even against Venkateswara Rao, whose name was figured in the complaint, was also acquitted by the criminal Court for lack of evidence. 7. In the impugned award the labour Court has recorded a finding that immediately after the incident the Depot Manager also reported to the Bhimavaram Police and based on which a case was registered in Crime No.333 of 1985 for the alleged offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code only against Saptharaju and Venkateswara Rao. Investigation in the criminal proceedings reveals that the prime accused made an attempt by conspiring with one Mr.Venkateswara Rao only. Though the departmental proceedings are initiated that the first respondent also conspired with a common intention, but however, there is no supporting material to prove the charge. From the investigation conducted in the criminal proceedings and other material on record it is clear that so far as first respondent is concerned there was no complaint against him and there is no other supporting material to prove that he has conspired along with prime accused viz., Saptharaju in making attempt against the life of the Depot Manager. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 18th March, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17417 of 2000 Between: The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Eluru. West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.Narasimha Rao, C/o DIvisional Secretary, APSRTC Employee's Union, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Presiding Officer Labour Court , Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.29/93,dt:11-5-99 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following :