APSRTC, HYD vs P. Pentaiah, R.R. District

The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 04.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.4850 of 2000.

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent-employee was serving in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as a Driver and the bus, which he was driving, met with an accident with an auto on 03.09.1995 resulting in death of two passengers of the auto. A charge sheet was issued in the matter and in spite of the plea taken by the workman that there was no negligence on his part, an order was passed on 16.03.1998 removing him from service and thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the charges against the workman are not proved and passed an award on 18.12.1998 directing his reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. The employer being aggrieved by the award has preferred a writ petition and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in part. However, interference has been done only in respect of grant of back wages.

The evidence on record was scanned by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge and the record reveals that the auto dashed to the bus at its back portion on the right side. It was not a head collusion establishing the negligence of the driver. Not only this, one of the witnesses Smt. K. Raghavamma, who was a passenger in the bus, also gave a statement at the departmental enquiry proceedings that it was the auto driver, who has dashed the bus from the middle on the right side, due to which the auto turned turtle and the passengers got injured and the driver of the auto died.

Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the appreciation done by the Labour Court is reflected, are reproduced as under:

“9. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, has held that even though the auto driver was driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner by taking a sudden turn, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent-workman to observe the vehicular traffic and take precaution to avoid the accident. It is further observed that the respondent-Driver should have observed the vehicular traffic from the side vision mirrors, but he had not done the same, and not acted according to the situation. While recording so, the inquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the respondent-Driver has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which has resulted in the accident. The said finding cannot be accepted in toto. May be that the bus was also in high speed, but it is to be observed that right from the beginning, the explanation offered by the respondent-workman was that he was driving the bus on the left side of the road, and the auto driver, who came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, has suddenly turned the auto towards the right side, and inspite of his best efforts by driving the bus towards the extreme left side of the road, the accident has occurred. When such is the deposition of the respondent-workman before the inquiry officer, as well as in his explanation filed to the charge sheet, it cannot be said that he was totally negligent in driving the bus. But at the same time, it is also to be noticed from the evidence on record that, had the Driver was driving the bus at a low speed, there was a possibility of avoiding the accident. It is clear from the evidence on record that both the vehicles were at high speed. From such evidence on record, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the extent that the respondent-workman was not rash and negligent in driving the bus, cannot be accepted in toto. As much as the respondent -workman was reinstated, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to modify the quantum of backwages awarded by the Tribunal, by limiting it to half of the backwages, inspite of full backwages, as awarded by the Tribunal.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part. The award of the Tribunal to the extent of setting aside the order of removal and reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, is confirmed, but however, the respondent-workman is entitled only to half of the backwages, instead of full backwages, as awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Labour Court stands modified to the limited extent as indicated above.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs.”

In the considered opinion of this Court, once negligence of the driver was not proved at all based upon the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry, the Labour Court was certainly justified in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings. However, as the driver has not worked during the period he was out of service, the learned Single Judge has confined payment of back wages to half of the back wages granted by the Labour Court and this Court keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondent-driver is no longer in service, does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.