IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 29111 of 2008 Between: 1 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Sathenapalli Depot Sathenapalli Guntur District 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Guntur ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Sri Pagididpalli Yesupadam S/o Narasaiah D.No.7-5/1/41 3rd Line Santhinagar Guntur E.384408 2 The Labour Court Guntur rep.by its Presiding Officer .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call the records pertaining to ID No.120/2005 dt 24-4-2008 on the file of the Labour Court in G.ORt No.1297 dt 13-6-2008 which was published on 4-7-2008 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the award, dated 24.4.2008 passed in I.D.No.120 of 2005 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur. The petitioners assert that the 1st respondent, during the course of his employment as Casual Driver, caused an accident while operating Bus No. AP9Z 4624, as a result, a lady pedestrian succumbed to injuries. After preliminary enquiry was conducted, the 1st respondent was placed under suspension, and two charges were framed against him, and subsequently, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the 1st respondent filed I.D. No.120 of 2005, and the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur passed the impugned award setting aside the order of removal of the 1st respondent from service and the petitioners herein were directed to reinstate the 1st respondent with continuity of service and other consequential benefits except back wages. Challenging the award, dated 24.4.2008 the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st respondent-driver has altogether created a new theory in order to defend his case even though there is negligence on his part in causing the accident. However, the Labour Court, without considering the same and without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective has passed the impugned award, setting aside the order of removal passed against the 1st respondent. Hence, he prays that the writ petition be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari are very limited. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai[1], the apex Court held as follows: “Certiorari, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction – by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.” It is seen from the conclusions reached by the Labour Court that the 1st respondent, in the preliminary enquiry, examined two passengers who travelled in the same bus and their evidence is that a Scooter came in a zig-zag manner opposite to the bus driven by 1st respondent, and in order to avert any major accident, the 1st respondent applied brakes suddenly and a result thereof, the bus moved towards right side of the road, and in the meantime, a lady passenger who tried to cross the road from back side of an Auto without observing the bus, was hit by the right side bumper of the bus, resulting in her instantaneous death. This evidence clearly indicates that the 1st respondent-Driver could not anticipate that a lady would suddenly cross the road from back side of the Auto. The finding given by the Labour Court shows that the bus was not inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector to verify as to whether the brakes were in good condition or not. The enquiry officer who gave evidence did not state that the brakes of the bus failed. It is also held that the 1st respondent slowed down the vehicle on seeing the Scooter coming in his opposite direction, and in spite of his best efforts to avoid accident, the accident took place. Hence, taking into consideration, the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the accident was beyond the control of the 1st respondent’s anticipation and the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on material evidence. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 31st December, 2008 bcj [1] AIR 2003 SC 3044 = 2003 AIR SCW 3872