Depot Manager vs N.P.Reddy

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11755 of 2007 dt.25-04-2017.

Heard Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

It has been contended by the appellant that the 1st respondent was employed as a driver with the appellant-Corporation and he had indulged in a

fatal accident because of his rash and negligent driving on 13-01-2002 and in the said accident, one pedestrian was killed on the spot. The disciplinary

authority has construed the said act of the 1st respondent as a mis-conduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge sheet on 15-02-

2002. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has filed a detailed explanation denying the charges. Later, the disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the

explanation of the 1st respondent, conducted detailed enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer and in the enquiry, the charges levelled against the 1st

respondent were proved and based upon the enquiry officer’s report, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of removal vide

proceedings dt.15-07-2002 which were also confirmed by the appellate authority on 06-10-2003.

It has been further contended by the appellant that the 1st respondent has challenged the orders of removal before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, by filing I.D.No.18 of 2004 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Tribunal was

pleased to pass an award in favour of the 1st respondent vide orders dt.15-06-2006 and was pleased to set aside the orders of removal and directed

the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent with continuity of service with 50% back-wages. The appellant-Corporation had challenged the orders of

the Tribunal by filing W.P.No.11755 of 2007 before this Court and this Court, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant, had

dismissed the Writ Petition vide orders dt.25-04-2017. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

It has been contended by the appellant that the 1st respondent had indulged in a fatal accident resulting the death of one pedestrian and the

disciplinary authority had imposed a punishment of removal based upon the enquiry officer’s report. The learned Single Judge at least ought to

have modified the award of the Tribunal by setting aside the back-wages portion of the award.

The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that admittedly, in the instant case, the 1st respondent was guilty of rash and negligent driving

of the bus. Learned counsel for the appellant had also informed the Court that the 1st respondent was reinstated into service in pursuance of the

award of the Tribunal and the 1st respondent also attained the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the appellant had therefore contended that

appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside that portion of the award of the Tribunal where 50% back-wages were paid in favour

of the 1st respondent.

Learned counsel for the 1st respondent had contended that the Tribunal has rightly passed an award in favour of the 1st respondent in exercise of

its power under Section 11-A of the Act and the Tribunal had interfered with the punishment of removal imposed on the 1st respondent holding that

the punishment of removal is excessive and the 1st respondent was reinstated into service in pursuance of the award of the Tribunal and the 1st

respondent also retired from service. Now the only issue remained is about payment of back-wages. The award of the Tribunal has been implemented

by reinstating the 1st respondent into service. No interference is called for and therefore the Writ Appeal be dismissed accordingly.

This Court having considered the rival submissions of the parties is of the considered view that the Labour Court has rightly passed orders in favour

of the 1st respondent in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Act. However, the Tribunal ought not to have granted 50% of the back-

wages as the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of removal for the proven misconduct in the enquiry and this Court having noticed that the

1st respondent was reinstated into service in pursuance of the award of the Tribunal and the 1st respondent also retired from service, ends of justice

would be met if only the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent of granting 25% back-wages instead of granting 50% back-wages. This

direction is given only to give quietus this long pending case as the 1st respondent has also retired from service during the pendency of this Writ

Appeal.

With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.