APHC010609922012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21813/2012 Between:

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Krishna District & Anr and ...PETITIONER(S)

Others AND Presiding Officer Labour Court Guntur Dist Anr and ...RESPONDENT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. V S K RAMA RAO

3. P VENKATESWAR RAO The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioners are challenging the award passed in I.D.No.08 of

2007 dated 24.06.2011 whereby the 2^nd respondent was directed to be reinstated into service together will 50% of back wages and continuity of service with all attendant benefits. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition granted stay of operation of the award except the issue of reinstatement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2^nd respondent caused a fatal accident on 18.02.2005 which resulted in death of motor cyclist. An enquiry was conducted after issuance of the charge sheet and enquiry officer found the 2^nd respondent as guilty of the charges. The 2^nd respondent was imposed with punishment of removal from services vide proceedings dated 10.05.2005. The 2^nd respondent filed I.D.No.08 of 2007 which was allowed by the labour Court directing the reinstatement of the 2^nd respondent together with 50% of back wages and continuity of services with attendant benefits. The 2^nd respondent was reinstated into services in pursuance of the directions of the labour Court.

4. Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that the 2^nd respondent is entitled for 100% of back wages and placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C.W.P.No.2629 of

2013.

5. As seen from the award, the labour Court has passed a detailed and well reasoned award and gave categorical finding that the 2^nd respondent was not solely responsible for the cause of the accident and that the disciplinary authority has removed the 2^nd respondent on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The evidence on record was also considered by the labour Court and gave a finding that the motor cyclist was driving the bike while talking over phone and it was he who had taken a sudden right turn which resulted in the accident. The motor cyclist hit the bus on its left side. Thus negligence or rashness on part of the 2^nd respondent was evidently not found. On these grounds, the 2^nd respondent was directed to be reinstated, as the labour Court found that the 2^nd respondent could not have been imposed the punishment which is not proportionate. The ratio of proportionality was well considered by the labour Court and as such rightly granted the relief to the 2^nd respondent.

6. Considering these facts and after considering the well considered award of the labour Court, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned award.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioners to release withheld service benefits which was extended by the labour Court in I.D.No.8 of 2007 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________

HARINATH.N,J

MH

30.01.2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21813/2012

MH

30.01.2025