IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 522 of 2007 Between: 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur-II Depot, guntur District 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Region Guntur ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Koritapati Simha Rayalu S/o.Peda Veeraiah D.No.4-8-414, Amaravathi Road behind Rama Buildings, Koratapadu, Guntur 2 Presiding Officer, Labour court, Guntur .....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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction especially are in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the recoreds relating to the impugned award dated 28.7.2005 made in ID.No.102/2003 Labour court, Guntur published on 17.10.2005 in G.O.Rt.No.2018 directing the petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with full back wages and with continuity of service and all attendant beneﬁts in including increments and quash the same as being bad illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.MANMADHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.522 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the Award dated 28.7.2005 made in I.D.No.102 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court, Guntur. Petitioners are management and ﬁrst respondent is workman. It appears, the respondent-workman while driving the Bus on 4.8.2000 on the route from Muttur to Guntur, met with an accident with boiled tar trolley, as a result of which, three passengers received grievous injuries. On this allegation, workman was proceeded with departmentally on the ground of lack of anticipation and after conducting a detailed enquiry, he was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, workman ﬁled appeal before the Divisional Manager and the same was rejected on 20.1.2000. Thereafter, he preferred revision before the Regional Manager, Guntur, which was also rejected on 1.4.2003. Therefore, he ﬁled a claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Guntur. It was the case of workman that neither the enquiry was properly conducted nor there was any evidence to show that he was negligent in performing the duties. Assuming that there was some negligence on his part, punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The petitioner-management resisted the claim of workman by filing a detailed counter. Though no oral evidence was adduced on either side, on behalf of workman, Ex.W1-certiﬁed copy of calendar judgment was marked and on behalf of petitioner- management, Exs.M1 to M33 were marked. After examining the entire evidence placed before it, the Labour Court held that though the charges were proved, punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and while exercising its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, passed award setting aside the order of removal and further held that the workman shall be deemed to have been retired from service with eﬀect from the date of removal on 17.2.2001 and retiral beneﬁts shall be paid to the workman. Aggrieved by the same, management filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner-management Mr.C.Prakash Reddy strenuously contended that this is a case of carelessness and lack of anticipation on the part of the respondent-workman. The Bus dashed against the stationed tar trolley, as a result of which, three passengers received grievous injuries. Therefore, there cannot be any other example to show that the workman was negligent in performing his duties and for such major accident, the only punishment could be removal from service. The Labour Court having found that the charges are proved, ought not to have exercised its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act directing the respondents to treat the workman having retired from service on the date of removal. He further contends that since the past conduct of the workman was not good, the Labour Court ought not to have exercised its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondent- workman states that the past conduct was never the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings, therefore the Labour Court has rightly ignored the same and when it comes to present misconduct, it was only an accident, which is unfortunate, therefore the Labour Court has rightly passed the award, which does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. The Labour Court did not disturb the ﬁndings recorded by the enquiry oﬃcer as conﬁrmed by the disciplinary authority and on the other hand, while conﬁrming the same, it felt that the dismissal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, therefore while exercising its discretionary power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, felt that the workman be retired from service compulsorily instead of removal from service with eﬀect from 17.2.2001. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 23.9.2008 DA