IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5403 of 2001 Between: M.Sailoo S/o.Late M.Sarvayya H.No.2-2-395/1, Near Gandhi Statue, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl.Industrial Tribunal - cum - Addl. Labour Court Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ibrahimpatnam Depot, Rangareddy District. .....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 an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st - respondent, pertaining to the Award dt.10.5.2000 passed in I.D.No.303/1999 and quash the same as being illegal and invalid and consequentially direct the 2nd - respondent/Corporation to re-instate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits including full backwages. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.BALACHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. This writ petition has been filed by the workman aggrieved by order dated 10-05- 2000 passed in I.D. No.303 of 1999 by the learned Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’), Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner, workman, was that he was working as a Driver in the 2nd respondent’s Corporation. On 05-05-1993 at about 20-45 hours when the workman driving the bus bearing No.AP 9Z/3291 on route Ibrahimpatnam – Tandur near Chevella at the place between Khanapur and Mirzaguda one bullock cart was proceeding on the same direction of the bus, the workman passing form the side of the bullock cart overtaking it in a normal speed, as soon as he came on the side of the bullock cart, he observed that a Jeep bearing No.CNW/3464 is coming in full speed and on seeing the speed of the Jeep, the driver of the bus stopped his vehicle, but by that time the jeep driver coming in full speed dashed to the front portion of the bus. There was sufficient space to the right side of the bus to proceed the jeep. It seems the jeep driver as soon as saw the bus, he could not control the speed and dashed against the bus. The speed of the jeep was so fast that after hitting to the bus, some portion of the jeep was gone under the bus. In the result, two persons died on the spot, one on the way to the Police Station and another at Osmania General Hospital. One person was saved with minor injuries. The Depot Manager issued charge sheet dated 19-05-1993 containing the charges that the workman is responsible for causing the accident and consequently passed the order of removal dated 27-01-1994 from the service. The case of the petitioner was that he was not at all responsible for causing the accident. However, the learned Tribunal confirmed the order dated 27-01-1994 passed by the Depot Manager removing the workman from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that absolutely there is no evidence to say that the petitioner was responsible for causing the accident. He also submits that in connection with the alleged accident, a criminal case was registered in C.C.No.117 of 1993. After full-fledged trial, the said criminal case was resulted in acquittal. In view of the above, the learned counsel placed reliance in the case of S.K. RAMJU v. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NALGONDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT AND OTHERS and contended that once the criminal case is ended in acquittal, no other misconduct in discharge of his duties, disciplinary action for the same offence cannot be proceeded against the driver. He also submits that in addition to the acquittal of the workman from the criminal charge, the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence on record and had it been considered, the result of the award would have been in a different manner. Therefore, the impugned award suffers from legal infirmity on the ground that the evidence on record has not been considered. Though on behalf of the Workman and Respondent Corporation none were examined, Ex.W- 1 dated 16-05-1996, C.C. No.177 of 1993 and Exs.M-1 to M-16 were got marked, respectively. The impugned award dated 10-05-2000 at para 10 and 11 are dealt with relevant consideration by the learned Tribunal which does not contain any part or anything about the evidence available on record being discussed by the learned Tribunal, except a statement of the conductor namely K. Yella Reddy. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that though the relevant portion of the award at para 10 and 11 are dealt with the relevant factors and the same is after due consideration of evidence on record. Therefore, it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. From a perusal of the record, it is obvious that on behalf of the workman Ex.W-1 dated 16-05-1996, CC No.117 of 1993 was got marked, which is relating to the criminal charge leveled against the workman with reference to the alleged accident which resulted in acquittal. Exs.M-1 to M-16 are the various documents have been got marked, which are available on record. Either the document marked on behalf of the workman or the documents marked on behalf of the respondent Corporation have been discussed, except a part of the alleged statement of the conductor of the bus namely K. Yella Reddy and which necessarily will not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for causing the accident and the respondent Corporation had rightly issued dismissal order of the workman. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it is a case of non-considering the evidence on record, which is illegal on the part of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record and erroneously come to a conclusion that the workman was responsible for causing the alleged accident and the enquiry conducted by the authorities in connection with the alleged accident is proper. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 10-05-2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the evidence on record, after giving an opportunity to both the parties, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, without influencing any of the observations made in this order. However, as the workman was removed from the service on 27-01-1994 and the dispute was raised in the year 1999 and the same was disposed of on 10-05- 2000, I am of the view that the matter is required to be disposed of at an early stage. In view of the same, the learned Tribunal is directed to dispose of this case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, with in a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 19-08-2008 LSK