( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the award dated 4/11/1998 passed by the labour Court-1, Hyderabad in I. D. No. 22 of 1997 confirming the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent -Depot Manager, andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation, Mehdipatnam Depot, Hyderabad against the petitioner.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Driver with the APSRTC in the year 1990. While so, when he was driving the bus bearing registration No. AAZ 4492 on the route 66g at 20. 15 hours and proceeding to charminar from Moazamzahi Market, at siddiambar Bazar Mosque an accident occurred. A dead body of a lady was found lying at a distance of about 12 on the right side of the road and on seeing the same, he swerved the bus to the left and stopped it. The area constable came there and asked him about the accident. He stated that his bus did not involve in the accident and he does not know anything about the accident. The service Conductor also stated that the driver suddenly stopped the bus and took the bus to the left of the road and the bus did not involve in the accident. Thereafter, the accident enquiry committee visited the spot, by which time neither the bus nor the dead body was there it being a very busy road in a very very busy business area. The enquiry committee seems to have, on mere presumptions and assumptions, reported that he is responsible for the accident. Neither there was any eye-witness nor anybody spoke about the accident. However, the 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet dated 8/04/1994 framing the following charge:"for having failed to apply your presence of mind in stopping the bus and failed to avert the fatal accident with an unknown lady pedestrian at 20. 15 hours on 1/02/1994 near Siddiamber Bazar mosque while you were operating the bus AAZ 4492 on route No. 66-G which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (ix) (a) of apsrtc Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1963. "he submitted his explanation to the chargesheet denying the allegation made therein. Without properly considering his explanation, the Management appointed an Enquiry Officer and conducted enquiry into the matter. No enquiry notice was served on him and an ex pane enquiry was conducted violating the principles of natural Justice. Further, a Notice dated 10/04/1995 was issued by the 2nd respondent to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. He submitted his explanation on 15/04/1995 reiterating his stand as was taken while submitting explanation to the charge-sheet and expressing his innocence about the unfortunate accident that occurred on 1/02/1994. The 2nd respondent without properly considering his explanation, has passed an order dated 25/04/1995 removing him from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the senior manager (Operations), Charminar, Hyderabad. The appellate authority confirmed the order of removal and rejected the appeal by order dated 20/06/1995. He also filed a review petition before the Regional Manager, hyderabad, which was also rejected by Order dated 17/07/1996. Aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. 22 of 1997 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2-A (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the management - 2nd respondent herein - filed a detailed counter affidavit. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Labour Court framed the following point for consideration:"whether the order of removal of the petitioner is justified? If not, to what relief the petitioner is entitled?"no oral evidence was adduced on either side. On behalf of the workman Petitioner herein Ex. W1, Xerox copy of the Judgment in c. C. No. 6 of 1995 on the file of the III metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad was marked and for the Management, Exs. M1 to m. 29 were marked. The Labour Court, after elaborate consideration of the matter, observed