B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the Award dated 8/03/1995 in i. D. No. 21 of 1990 passed by the Labour court, Guntur insofar as it is against the petitioner in denying the continuity of service and back wages.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question relating to the legality and validity of the award, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts: The petitioner herein is a driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation. He was kept under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 25/03/1989 alleging that on 9/03/1989 when the petitioner was driving the bus on the route Guntur to repalle, met with fatal accident at the outskirts of Ponnur due to his rash and negligent driving and due to lack of. anticipation. Then second respondent accordingly had issued a charge-sheet dated 28/03/1989 with the following charges:1. For your rash and negligent driving the vehicle No. AAZ-8865 on route Guntur- repalle which was culminated in fatal accident caused to the vehicle in the outskirts of Ponnur dashing against two lady pedestrians one of whom succumbed to injuries in the Government General Hospital. Ponnur and later one was shifted to government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix) (b) of APSRTC employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having lack of anticipation while driving the vehicle No. AAZ-8865 on the route Guntur-Repalle which met with fatal accident duly dashing two lady pedestrians one of whom succumbed to injuries and later was admitted in Government General hospital. Guntur which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix) (a) of apsrtc Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to apply breaks and avert the above accident referred to in charge Nos. 1 and 2, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix) (b) of apsrtc Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1963.

( 3 ) THE petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet on 1/04/1989 denying the charges levelled against him and explaining the circumstances under which the accident had occurred. The second respondent, however, ordered an enquiry by the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Guntur division. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 26/06/1989 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The second respondent accepted the said findings of the Enquiry officer and accordingly a show- cause notice dated 17/07/1989 was served upon the petitioner requiring the explanation of the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from the service of the Corporation. The petitioner submitted his explanation and reply on 28/07/1989. The second respondent having considered the explanation, passed orders removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation by an order dated 4/08/1989. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager was rejected on 26/12/1989. The petitioner, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) by filing a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act challenging the order of removal.

( 4 ) THE Labour Court passed an award directing the reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back wages and without continuity of service. The petitioner challenges that part of the Award, which went against him. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for continuity of service as well as full back wages from the date of his removal till reinstatement into service.

( 5 ) IT may have to be noticed that the petitioner herein was charge-sheeted by the police for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal code read with Section 39 (a) and (b) of Motor vehicles Act in C. C. No. 67 of 1989 on the file of learned Munsiff Magistrate, Ponnur. The learned Magistrate by the judgment dated 18/06/1991 acquitted the petitioner of the charge of rash and negligent driving. The acquittal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document