IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27949 of 2007 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Pathikonda, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ananthapur. 2 Kota Jagannath (Died) S/o. Late K. Thimmappa 3 K. Rohini Devi @ K. Roshamma W/o. Late Jagannath 4 K. Poornakala D/o. Late Jagannath 5 K. Bhurgavikala D/o. Late Jagannath Petitioners 2 to 4 were added as per Order in IA NO.59/2006 in ID 13/2005 dt. 21-2-2006 .....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 ID No.13/2005 on the ﬁle of Labour Court, Ananthapur and quash the award dt. 6-6-2006 by issuing appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 27949 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in I.D. No. 13 of 2005 dated 6.6.2006 on the file of Labour Court, Ananthapur. Petitioner is the management. Respondent No.2 was the workman (since died) and respondents 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased workman. It appears, the deceased employee, while working as driver in APSRTC at Pathikonda bus depot, Kurnool District was entrusted with the duty of driving the bus bearing registration No. AP 11 Z 1987 on the intervening night of 13/14.5.2004 on the route – Pathikonda to Hyderabad. While so, an accident occurred near Addakula village at about 2 a.m. and the bus driven by the workman hit a stationed lorry bearing No. AHT 9555 on the road side, as a result of which the bus as well as the lorry were damaged and many of the passengers suﬀered minor injuries. After conducting detailed enquiry into the said midconduct, the petitioner – management removed the workman from service. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised a dispute and ﬁled claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Chairman-cum-Presiding Oﬃcer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. The case of the workman was that he was not responsible for the accident; it was only due to the mistake of the lorry driver who was negligent that the accident occurred and that the enquiry was not properly conducted. Further, even assuming that there is misconduct on the part of the workman, that could not have necessitated in removal of the workman from service. In the circumstances, the removal of the workman was disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The petitioner – management ﬁled counter denying the allegations made by the workman. On behalf of the workman, none was examined, however, Ex.W1 was marked. On behalf of the management, though none was examined, Exs.M1 and M2 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence before the Enquiry Oﬃcer to ﬁnd fault with the deceased employee that he failed to anticipate in advance the lorry in opposite direction and that had he anticipated the same, he would not have caused the accident with the stationed lorry. Thus, the Labour Court found that the order of removal of the workman from service is illegal and consequently held that the respondent – workman is entitled for reinstatement etc. However, in view of the fact that the workman died during the pendency of the I.D. on 15.12.2005, the Labour Court directed that the legal heirs of the deceased workman are entitled for full backwages up to the date of death of the deceased workman i.e. 15.12.2005. Further, the Labour Court held that the legal heirs are entitled for death-cum-retiral beneﬁts of the deceased workman. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari strenuously contended that the deceased workman had hit a stationed lorry, which was on the left side of the road, without observing the same and hitting a stationed lorry deﬁnitely amounts to negligence on the part of the deceased workman; therefore, the charges against him were proved and the petitioner – Management rightly removed him from service and the Labour Court grossly erred in holding that there was absolutely no evidence to come to the conclusion that there is no fault on the part of the deceased workman. Learned counsel further contended that even otherwise granting full backwages up to the date of death of the deceased workman, while ordering reinstatement, is illegal and arbitrary. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the impugned Award and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except to the extent of awarding backwages. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, categorically gave a ﬁnding that there was no evidence whatsoever before the Enquiry Oﬃcer to ﬁnd fault with the deceased workman that he failed to anticipate the opposite lorry in advance and that had he anticipated the stationed lorry he would not have caused the accident. Failure in anticipation cannot be a ground for dismissal of an employee from service, for anticipation depends upon various circumstances to which particular person was exposed when he was performing his duties. In this case, the so-called accident occurred at 2.00 a.m. i.e. in the mid of the night. According to the workman there were no lights to indicate that a lorry was parked on the road side and the focus of the headlights of the bus was not sufficient to observe the long-range objects. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that there is no evidence to ﬁnd fault with the workman. However, apart from granting reinstatement and continuity of service, awarding backwages are not desirable in a case of this nature. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already deposited 50% of the backwages as directed by this Court on 3.7.2008 while granting interim suspension of the Award passed by the Labour Court and the respondents – dependents of the deceased workman have withdrawn the same. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Award passed by the Labour Court is modiﬁed to the extent of reinstatement of the deceased workman with continuity of service and only 50% of the backwages from the date of removal i.e. 8.10.2004 till the date of death of the deceased workman i.e. 15.12.2005 and the respondents – dependents of the deceased workman are also entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds, if any, as per the eligibility. With the above modiﬁcation of the Award passed by the Labour Court, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 17-09-2008. MVB.