THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 8177 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in I.D. No. 306 of 1998 dated 18.10.2004 on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur whereunder the petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act seeking relief of reinstatement with continuity of service etc. was allowed partly, setting aside the order of removal passed by the respondents; however, it was stated that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been retrenched from service with effect from 29.4.1997 and the petitioner shall be given retrenchment compensation of 15 days’ last pay drawn for every completed year of service. Petitioner is the workman and respondent No.1 is the management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Driver in the year 1989 and was continuously working as such till his services were retrenched with effect from 29.4.1997. According to the petitioner, when he was driving bus bearing No. AP9Z 1425 on the route Rapur – Penchela Kona (via Nellore), an accident was caused on 1.1.1997 due to sudden breakage of spring bed and resultant failure of breaks, as a result of which the bus lost balance and hit a tree in which a passenger, having received injuries, died. On the basis of the above incident, charge sheet was issued and an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer conducted detailed enquiry and submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority, after completing the formalities, passed order of removal from service on 29.4.1997. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager. However, the same was dismissed on 31.12.1997. Further, the review filed before the Regional Manager, Nellore also met with the same fate on 28.10.1998. Therefore, petitioner had filed petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act seeking to set aside the removal order dated 29.4.1997 and to direct the respondent-management to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, full backwages and attendant benefits. Before the labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. Further, even assuming that there is some negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the bus, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. Respondent-management filed detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and justified the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. Further, it was stated that the enquiry was properly conducted and there was any amount of evidence to prove that the workman was guilty of the charges and no ground is made out calling for interference of the Labour Court. Though no oral evidence was let in by both the parties, on behalf of the workman, Ex.W-1 was marked and Exs.M-1 to M-12 were marked on behalf of the respondent-management. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, Labour Court came to the conclusion that the APSRTC ought not to have taken a different stand in the compensation case (O.P) to defend itself. While doing so, APSRTC has taken a stand that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, whereas, in the domestic enquiry, the whole case was as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. Therefore, the claim was partly allowed and the order of removal was set aside and it was held that the workman shall be deemed to have been retrenched from service with effect from the date of his removal i.e. 29.4.1997 and the petitioner shall be given retrenchment compensation of fifteen days pay last drawn for every completed year of service. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition is filed by the workman stating that once the Labour Court held that the removal order is liable to be set aside and in fact set aside, passing an order that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been retrenched from service with effect from the date of removal is arbitrary and illegal etc. The Award passed by the Labour Court reads as under: “The petitioner took advantage of the counter filed in O.P. 250/97 by APSRTC in defending compensation case. The petitioner was removed from service with effect from 29.4.1997. Whereas the counter in O.P.-250/97 was filed on 8.9.97. Therefore, the counter allegations in OP-250/97 have nothing to do with the removal of the petitioner from the service prior to the filing of the counter. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner caused accident due to his rash and negligent driving. The spring bed was broken due to the accident and not prior to the accident. I therefore hold that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The APSRTC ought not to have taken a different stand in the compensation case simply to defend the case. While doing so, APSRTC has taken a stand that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. I, therefore, hold that the punishment of removing the petitioner from the service is not in proportion to the charges. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The order of removal of the petitioner from the service is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been retrenched from service with effect from the date of his removal i.e. 29.4.1997. The petitioner shall be given retrenchment compensation of fifteen days pay last drawn for every completed year of service. Award is passed accordingly”. From the above, it is seen that the Labour Court has not discussed anything as to the negligence on the part of the driver (workman). But, it had made an observation that the petitioner was removed from service on 29.4.1997, whereas, in the counter in O.P. No. 250 of 1997, filed on 8.9.1997, the respondent-APSRTC had taken a plea that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Further, in the domestic enquiry, the charge is that the workman (petitioner) drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, which resulted in accident and death of two passengers. Be that as it may, this writ petition is not filed by the management. While holding that the removal order passed on 29.4.1997 stands set aside, it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to treat that the petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from the date of removal i.e. 29.4.1997 and that the petitioner shall be given retrenchment compensation of 15 days last drawn pay for every completed year of service etc. I am of the considered opinion that once the removal order is set aside, petitioner-workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, without backwages and without any attendant benefits. In the result, the Award passed by the Labour Court is modified to be read as under: “The order of removal of the petitioner from service is set aside. Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service but without any backwages and other attendant benefits”. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-9-2010. MVB.