IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17563 of 2006 and 8993 of 2008 1. W.P.No.17563 of 2006 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada Depot. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Sk.Galisha, Ex.Driver, APSRTC., D.No.1-1243 (A1), Park Road, 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. ...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 the award in ID No.150/2003 dated 29.9.2005 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur by way of issuance of writ, order more particularly writ of Certiorari and set aside the same as arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR 2. W.P.NO.8993 of 2008 Between: Sk. Galish, S/o. Bude Saheb, Second Line, D.No. 12-43 A1, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Depot, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Presiding Office, Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records relating to the award dt. 29-9-2005 passed in ID No. 150/2003 which was notified on 5-11-2005 GO Rt No. 2177 is arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and set-aside the same, consequently direct the respondent that removal shall be treated as a retirement from superannuation age with effect from 27-12-2005 and treat the period from 28-8-2002 to 27-12-2005 as continuity in service. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.ALLABAKASH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.17563 of 2006 and 8993 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two Writ Petitions are filed assailing the award dated 29.09.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.150 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.17563 of 2006. The first respondent is appointed as driver in Vijayawada Depot of APSRTC. On 23.01.2002, he was on duty to drive the bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 8172 from Hyderabad to Vijayawada. The passengers complained that the first respondent was in intoxicated condition and accordingly, the bus was stopped at Hayathnagar Police Station. It is avered that even while the efforts were being made to verify his condition, the first respondent fled away with the bus. He was apprehended only at Choutappal. It is stated that at Choutappal, police got the first respondent examined in a Government Hospital and found that he was in intoxicated condition. Necessary charges were framed on these allegations and thereafter, departmental enquiry was conducted. Through order dated 28.08.2002, the petitioner removed the first respondent from service. The remedies of departmental appeal and review did not yield any result to him. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court under Section 2- A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for brevity). Through the impugned order dated 29.09.2005, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed that the first respondent shall be treated as having retired with effect from 28.08.2002. While the petitioner contends that the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the order of removal even after holding that the charges were proved, the first respondent challenge the award insofar as it did not grant the relief of reinstatement into service till the age of superannuation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. In the departmental enquiry, it was amply proved that the first respondent was driving the bus in a drunken condition. The Labour Court did not find any defect in the departmental proceedings. On the other hand, it concurred with the findings in the departmental enquiry. However, it has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act and made an effort to strike a decent balance between the punishment to be imposed on the employee on the one hand and protecting the interests of the Corporation and thereby, the travelling public, on the other hand. The fact remains that though the first respondent was found in an intoxicated condition, no untoward incident has taken place. In that view of the matter, denial of all the benefits for the services rendered by him for the past decades would have, naturally resulted in injustice to him. At the same time, continuance of an individual, who was found to be driving a vehicle, in intoxicated condition, would not be in the interests of the travelling public or the Corporation. The Labour Court has chosen to put an end to the service of the first respondent with effect from date of removal, with the only difference that the retirement benefits up to the accelerated date of retirement were made available to him. This Court is of the view that the Labour Court has given cogent reasons in support of its finding and that no interference is warranted. Both the Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 25th July 2008 RRB