THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 15547 of 2000 Dated: 25-11-2010 Between: M.J.R.Raju …Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Presiding Officer and others …Respondents ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 2-2-2000 in I.D.No. 15 of 1998. The writ petitioner is a driver employed with the APSRTC and at that time attached to Ravulapalem depot. He filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service, challenging the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 27-1-1997. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner pursuant to an event that occurred on 30-7-1996 while the petitioner was driving a bus on the route Ravulapalem to Eluru. After passing Chebrolu there was a head-on collision between a Car and the bus driven by the petitioner resulting in the death of some of the passengers of the car, injuries to others in the Car and injuries to some passengers of the bus as well. The bus had swerved to the left and hit a tree after the accident. The petitioner was charged on two counts (1) for having driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of some occupants of the Car; and (2) for having failed to take precautionary measures while crossing the vehicles coming in the opposite direction resulting in a fatal accident; both of which charges constitute misconduct under the relevant provisions of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. After a due process of enquiry the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of removal from service. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge of rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident was not established on the basis of the evidence in the departmental inquiry. However the petitioner was found guilty of contributory negligence in not driving his vehicle with the moderation in speed required in the circumstances, which resulted in damage to the bus and injury to passengers of the bus on account of the bus hitting a tree after the collision. As a consequence of this finding, the Labour Court confirmed the guilt of the petitioner as arrived at in departmental inquiry in so far as charge No.2 is concerned and set aside the findings of the departmental inquiry in respect of charge No.1. Consequently, since charge No.2 was of a lesser gravity to charge No.1, the Labour Court was exercises its discretion under Section 11 of the Act and modified the punishment of removal to one of a cut of three increments with cumulative effect, treating the period of suspension within the modified punishment. The petitioner was also directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service but without back wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the Labour Court erred in its reasoning in confirming the findings of guilt of the petitioner in respect of Charge No.2. It is contended that since the Labour Court found the petitioner not guilty of the charge of rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident, the petitioner could not have been found guilty of contributory negligence resulting in fatalities though of a grievous nature to the passengers of the bus. The above contention on behalf of the petitioner does not commend acceptance by this Court. Two distinct charges were framed against the petitioner, one relating to rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident and the other pertaining to a failure to take precautionary measures while crossing vehicles coming in the opposite direction. It is on record that at the time when the accident occurred, there was a heavy rain. It is also in the evidence that the bus driven by the petitioner was itself moving at a considerable speed and the accident sketch and the statements of passengers and eye witnesses recorded on the spot revealed that the bus driven by the petitioner was driven at a high speed and as a result after hitting the Fiat Car which was coming in the opposite direction and (which had swerved to the right) the bus driven by the petitioner swerved to the extreme left to a distance of 320 feet and dashed against a tree resulting in heavy damage to the bus and serious injuries to its passengers. On the basis of this evidence on record, the conclusion by the Labour Court of careless driving by the petitioner is justified and suffers from no infirmity, either of irrational appreciation of evidence or faulty conclusion, warranting interference in judicial review. The modified punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is also not grossly disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner found in the enquiry and as confirmed by the Labour Court. On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ch.Dhananjaya and Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3. There shall however be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 25th November, 2010. GRR