IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 11484 of 1999 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sangareddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Sri Mohd. Shahabuddin S/o. Md.Khaja H.No. 6-30, Kummargalli, Prabhu Mandir, Narayankhed Depot, Medak District, at present attached to Narayanakhed Depot, Medak District. 2 The Labour Court-II, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad .....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 appropriate Writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of a writ of Ceretiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award Dt.22.3.98 made in ID.No.7/95, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad published on 8-5-98, holding that the removal order passed against the 1st respondent is illegal, and directing his reinstatement into service with continuity of service and with 50% of back Wages; and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, and pass such other order or orders just circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, filed the present writ petition questioning the Award dated 22.03.1998 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.7 of 1995 whereby the first respondent was ordered to be re-instated into service and paid 50% of back wages. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent was appointed as driver in the petitioners-Corporation and while he was driving a bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5060, an accident occurred on 17.02.1994, on account of which, a pedestrian died. A criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was registered and similarly a domestic enquiry was also ordered by the petitioners- Corporation. After conducting the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the said accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 21.07.1994 removing the first respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent filed I.D.No.7 of 1995 before the Labour Court-II at Hyderabad and the Labour Court, after going through the entire evidence adduced during the course of the proceedings, came to the conclusion that the first respondent cannot be fastened with the rash and negligent act, and accordingly ordered his re-instatement, but however restricted the back wages to 50%, as he prolonged the matter before the Labour Court, and accordingly passed an Award on 23.03.1998. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. A charge sheet was filed against the first respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jogipet in C.C.No.201 of 1994 and the learned Magistrate, having conducted trial, came to the conclusion that the first respondent was not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly acquitted him. No doubt, in the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the first respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him, and accordingly recommended for his removal from service. Inasmuch as the judgment passed by the Criminal Court acquitting the first respondent has no binding nature, this aspect also can be taken into consideration particularly when the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent was not guilty of the charges for which he was tried. 5. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. that in pursuance of the Award passed by the Labour Court, the first respondent was re-instated into service and he was also paid 25% of total back wages, as per the order passed by this Court on 14.06.1999. 6. As the first respondent was re-instated into service and paid 25% of back wages, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court at this length of time. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 11th June, 2009. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No. 11484 of 1999 (Dismissed-NC) 11th June, 2009 CBS