The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Ranigunj-Ii Depot, v. Sri K R Goud, S/O. Chinnaiah Goud,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR W .P.NO.2 8 5 3 0 OF 2 0 0 7
O R D E R
Assailing the award dated 19.07.2006 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal - cum - Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.68 of 2004, in setting aside the order of removal passed by the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and directing to reinstate the workman into service with all attendant benefits, including full back wages, the present writ petition came to be filed. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent/ workman herein was appointed as driver in the Corporation in the year 1997. On 9.10.1999 at about 17-10 hours, while he was driving the bus bearing No.
AP 9Z 8048 on route 16-K, proceeding from Naredmet crossroads to Dilsuknagar, and when the bus was near Katta Maisamma, Safilguda tank bund, it dashed a Luna (moped) as a result of which the Luna rider fell down and received sever head injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. The Senior Traffic Inspector recorded the statements of the crew and submitted report dated 20.10.1999, holding the workman responsible for the accident. Accordingly he was charge sheeted on 28.10.1999. Denying the charges made, the workman submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the same, the Inquiry Officer was appointed, who after conducting an inquiry, submitted his report holding the workman guilty of the charges.
After issuing show cause notice and considering his explanation, the workman was terminated from service vide proceedings dated 30.3.2000.
in the departmental appeal and review, raised I.D.No.68/ 2004. By the impugned award, as noted above, he was directed to be reinstated with all attendant benefits, including full back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present writ petition.
On 18.1.2008 this Hon'ble Court while admitting the writ petition, ordered interim stay of execution of the award dated 18.10.2006 only to the extent of back wages.
The learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioner - Corporation submits that the Inquiry Officer, after complying with the principles of natural justice, conducted inquiry and found the workman guilty. He further submits that in the present case, because of the rash and negligent driving, the workman hit the Luna as a result of which the rider of the vehicle fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Hence it is urged that the Labour Court cannot re-appreciate the same and come to a different conclusion. He stated that the Tribunal is not justified in awarding full back wages in the absence of any pleading that the workman was not gainfully employed during the period of his unemployment.
The learned counsel for the respondent - workman while supporting the impugned award, pleaded dismissal of the writ petition. A learned single Judge of this court in DI VI SI ONAL MANAGER APSRTC v . E.RAJA REDDY1, while considering the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also judgment of the 1 1999 (5) ALT 450
Apex Court in FI RESTONE TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF I NDI A P. LTD. V. MANAGEMENT2 analysed the legal position to the following effect: a) The Labour Court / Tribunal after introduction of Section 11-A of the Act is clothed with necessary power and jurisdiction to reapprecaite the material available on record and substitute its own findings than that of the disciplinary authority. The power exercised by the Labour Court / Tribunal is akin to that of an appellate court.
b) The Labour Court / Tribunal is duty bound to reappreciate the evidence in cases where the workman filed a memo as to the validity of the domestic enquiry. c) The Labour / Tribunal even after holding that the domestic enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice may yet to interfere with the findings and substitute its own findings, may reverse the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and hold that the charges are not established. d) The Labour Court / Tribunal can also find that the evidence and material available on record justifies the findings of misconduct arrived at by the disciplinary authority and still hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified under the circumstances of a particular case and accordingly award only lesser punishment.
From a reading of the above principles, it is clear that the Labour court even after holding that the domestic inquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, is clothed with the power to re-appreciate the evidence adduced at the time of domestic inquiry and can come to a different conclusion to ascertain as to whether the charge framed against the workman is proved or not. In view of this legal position, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, cannot be accepted. Coming to the facts of the case, the charge against the workman is that on 9.10.1999 at about 17-10 hours, while he was driving the bus on the route from Naredmet cross road to Dilsuknagar, dashed a Luna as a result of which the rider received severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries.
The case of the workman is that the Luna came in opposite direction in a zig zag manner and hit the bus and that at the time of accident, the rider of the Luna was in a drunken condition.
and dashed the bus. Immediately he shifted the deceased to Gandhi hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. Further, it is urged that the criminal case registered against him in C.C.No.916/ 2002, ended in acquittal. From the material on record, it could be seen that the conductor of the bus recorded the statements of the passengers present in the bus in his S.R., which was marked as Ex.M-2 before the Inquiry Officer. As per the statements of the passengers, the Luna rider came in opposite direction in a zig-zag manner; hit the bus and that he was in a drunken condition. It is further observed that smell of alcohol was emanating from his mouth. They further stated that the workman had taken the injured person to Gandhi Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries.
The contents of the inpatient summary sheet reads as under "Breath smells as alcohol", which shows that the deceased Luna rider was in a drunken condition at the time of accident. The Senior Traffic Superintendent, who submitted his report holding the workman responsible for the accident, has not drawn the rough sketch of the scene of accident, to show that the workman was guilty of driving the bus in the wrong direction. The Labour Court also found that as per the circulars issued by the head office, if any fatal accident occurs, the two Depot Managers have to form as Joint Action Committee and then submit report. But in the present case, no such report was submitted. The criminal case registered against the workman for the accident in question, also ended in acquittal.
Considering the entire evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the luna rider who was in a drunken condition is responsible for the accident. Hence, the Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of removal dated 30.3.2000 and directed reinstatement of the workman into service with attendant benefits, including back wages. In the light of the above circumstances and the evidence on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ------------------------------------------- C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J DATE: 14-03-2017 AVS