IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19542 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mahabubabad Depot, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indl. Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal. 2 Sri B Laxman, E.306304, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mahabubabad Depot, C/o. Sri P. Surender Kumar, Advocate, Padmakshi Colony, Hanumakonda. .....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 issue any appropriate Writ, direction or order particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Award in ID No. 142/96 dated 20/7/98 of the Indl. Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal (Respondent No.1) and published on 26/10/1998 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitary and unjust and pass such other orders may be deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.V.V.P.Rao The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19542 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), questioning the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, dated 20th July 1998, passed in I.D.No.142 of 1996. 2. The 2nd respondent was working as a Driver in the petitioner-Corporation. While he was driving the bus bearing No.AEZ-5237 on 06.01.1994 at 10.00 hours, the said bus met with a fatal accident at Peddamupparam. It is stated that the accident had occurred when a boy, aged about 1½ years, came under the left front wheel of the bus and died. 3. With reference to the said accident, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by framing a charge against the 2nd respondent for driving the vehicle with negligence, which resulted in the death of a boy, aged about 1 ½ years, and the same will amount to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28 (ix) (a) (b) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The 2nd respondent-employee has submitted his explanation for the said charge, but, dissatisﬁed with the same, an inquiry was initiated against him by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer. The inquiry oﬃcer has submitted his report, by recording a ﬁnding that the workman was at negligence. Based on such ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, the disciplinary authority has imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which will have eﬀect on future increments, beside treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. 4. With reference to the above said punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings, on the representation made by the petitioner, a reference was ordered by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.253, dated 07.05.1996 under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to adjudicate the dispute between the 2nd respondent-Driver and the Depot Manager of APSRTC. The reference is to the following effect : “Whether the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Warangal-II Depot is justiﬁed in reducing the pay of Sri B.Laxman, Driver, E.306304, by two documental stages for a period of two years which shall have its eﬀect on future increments besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty ordered in his oﬃce order No.01/2(1)/94-WL.II, dt.29.6.94 ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?” 5. Punishment was imposed in the Departmental proceedings in view of the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer to the eﬀect that the 2nd respondent- Driver has started the bus at Peddamupparam stage with lack of anticipation and negligence, which resulted in the death of a crawling boy, aged about 1½ years. However, the Tribunal, on re-appreciating the evidence on record, and considering the statement of the 2nd respondent recorded during the inquiry, and also the explanation oﬀered by him, recorded a ﬁnding that initially, the bus was stopped at the stage in Peddamupparam village, and on signalling by the Conductor, the bus was started, but however, when there was a cry by one of the passengers for boarding the bus, the vehicle was stopped. Then, after closure of the door by the Conductor, the but was started again, but in the meanwhile, the deceased, an unfortunate boy, aged about 1 ½ years, came under the left front wheel of the bus, and thus, came in contact with the vehicle. The Tribunal below has recorded a ﬁnding that the deceased boy was only a crawling baby, and as he came in contact with the left front wheel of the bus, it may not be possible for the 2nd respondent-Driver, who was sitting on the right side portion of the bus on the steering, to observe the said boy on the ground near the left front wheel of the bus. The Tribunal has also recorded a ﬁnding that the accident did not take place when the deceased boy was on the road, infront of the bus, to the vision of the Driver. The Tribunal has recorded the above said ﬁndings in disagreement with the ﬁndings recorded by the disciplinary authority, and clearly held that the evidence on record goes to show that there was no fault on the part of the Driver. 6. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner in this writ petition that there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent-Driver, but however, it is not known as to on what basis the inquiry oﬃcer has recorded a ﬁnding against the delinquent-employee, as the inquiry report is not ﬁled. Asmuch as the inquiry report is not placed on record before this Court, it is not known as to what went on in the mind of the inquiry oﬃcer in recording a ﬁnding that the Driver of the bus was at fault. 7. When an Industrial Dispute is referred to the Tribunal, it is always open for it to re-appreciate the evidence available on its record. In view of the convincing reasons recorded by the Tribunal, and also in view of the fact that the inquiry report is not placed before this Court, it is not possible for this Court to ﬁnd any fault with the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th August 2008 ajr