IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1 5 8 8 OF 2005 Between: The APSRTC Represented by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj-I Depot, Secunderabad …. Appellant V/s. Sriramulu s/o Mallaiah aged about 33 years, Ex-Driverm, E-104484, R/o. 5-54/A, Indiranagar, Ramanathapur, Hyderabad & Anr. …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V.T.M. Prasad Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Narsimha Goud Govt.Pleader for Labour THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1 5 8 8 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed by the APSRTC against order dated 06-4-2004 passed in WP.No. 16075 of 1997 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the main writ petition holding that the award passed by the Labour Court in directing reinstatement with 50% back-wages as illegal or erroneous. 2. The main writ petition has been filed by the APSRTC questioning the award dated 13-3-1996 passed in I.D.No. 103 of 1995 by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, directing reinstatement of first respondent into service with 50% back-wages and continuity of service and to quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. 3. Facts in brief are that the first respondent joined the services of the appellant-corporation as driver on 13-4-1984. It is stated that on 16-10-1989 while the first respondent herein was driving the bus bearing No.AAZ-9722, an accident took place causing death of a cyclist. On the basis of enquiry report, dated 10- 11-1989, the appellant-corporation issued a charge sheet to the first respondent herein framing the following charge: “For having caused fatal accident on 16-X-1989 on route No.2-U at about 09:45 hours near Mecca Masjid, which resulted into death of cyclist due to carelessness, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No. 28 (xix) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963.” 4. In pursuance of the said charge, the first respondent herein did not submit his explanation. Thereupon the appellant-corporation a regular enquiry in which the first respondent got himself examined and also examined some other witnesses. It is stated that after completion of Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the first respondent herein was found guilty of the charge. In pursuance thereof, by order dated 25-8-1990, the first respondent was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent herein filed an appeal but the same was rejected by the Divisional Manager on 29-11-1991. Thereupon, the second appeal filed by him to the Regional Manager was also rejected in January 1992. Questioning the same, the first respondent herein filed I.D.No.103 of 1995. Before the Labour Court, both the first respondent as well as the appellant-corporation let-in both oral and documentary evidence. Having considered the entire material available on record, the Labour Court observed that since except one Mr.Mohammed Yousuf, no other eye-witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer and even the said eye witness categorically deposed that the accident was not due to the rash and/or negligent driving of the driver. In the absence of any other trustworthy evidence on record to prove clearly that the accident was due to rash and or negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent, the Labour court therefore held that the order of removal passed by the appellant-corporation cannot be upheld. Therefore, the award dated 13-03-1996 and the order of removal dated 25-8-1990 was accordingly set aside and reinstatement with 50% of back-wages from the date of removal together with continuity of service was ordered. The award therefore was challenged in the writ petition. 5. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence let in, the learned single Judge has confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and directed reinstatement with 50% back-wages. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-corporation. 6. The learned standing counsel for the appellant-corporation mainly contended that after conducting domestic enquiry the first respondent herein was removed from service by an order dated 25-8- 1990 and the order of removal was confirmed in appeal by order dated 29-11-1991 and in review also it was confirmed by order dated 31-8-1992. The learned standing counsel for the appellant- corporation has drew the attention of this court that when the domestic enquiry was held to be valid, the Labour court cannot interfere with the findings of the disciplinary, appellate and review authorities when there is supporting evidence against the first respondent. Further the Labour Court also erred in holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be accepted and consequently the order of removal cannot be upheld. He vehemently contended that the findings of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned single Judge with regard to directing reinstatement with 50% backwages from the date of removal together with continuity of service is without basis. Finally, the learned standing counsel contended that 25% of the back-wages i.e., 50% of the back-wages has been deposited at the time of filing of the writ petition and the same has been withdrawn by the first respondent herein. 7. On the other hand, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, the learned counsel for the first respondent herein opposed the same and strongly contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the absence of any other trustworthy evidence on record goes to show that the accident was not due to the rash and/or negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent. By award dated 13-3-1996, the order of removal dated 25-8-1990 was rightly set aside by the learned single Judge and there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 8. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- corporation as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent. 9. Though several contentions were sought to be raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant-corporation but however, in view of the fact that medical authorities have concord to the effect that the first respondent herein should be reinstated into service with 50% of back-wages, we are of the opinion that the award can be modified to that of 25% of back-wages, which has been withdrawn by the first respondent herein. 10. With the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 04-02-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1 5 8 8 OF 2005 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 5 6 Date: 04-02-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L