THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.11720 OF 2007

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“To issue a certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 17.08.2006 made in I.D.No.60/2004 by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, published on 15.11.2006 in G.O.Rt.No.2158 dated 18.10.2006, directing the petitioner to reinstate the 1^st respondent into service with continuity of service and other benefits except back wages, and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction, and invalid.”

2. Heard Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the petitioner, Sri S. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

3. Brief Facts of the Case:

(i) The 1^st respondent was initially appointed as a casual driver in the petitioner-Corporation on 27.05.1999 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.2000. While performing his duties, on 14.01.2004, he was involved in a fatal road accident near Gumpula Village, Suryapet at around 9:30 a.m., while driving Bus No.AP11Z 113 on the Vijayawada–Hyderabad route. The accident involved an auto- rickshaw bearing No. AP21V265, in which one passenger died and three others sustained serious injuries. A criminal case was registered under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC.

(ii) A charge sheet dated 20.02.2004 was issued to the 1^st respondent, framing the following charges:

[

(a) “For having caused Fatal accident while driving the Vehicle No.AP11Z113 Metro Express Bus coming from Vijayawada to Hyderabad resulted in 3 Auto passengers seriously injured and one Auto passenger named Sri Bullaka Buchatah aged 50 years died on the way to Hospital, Hyderabad on 14.01.04 at about 09:30 hrs at Gumpula village near Suryapet which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) APSRTC (CONDUCT)

Regulations, 1963.”

(b) “For having driven the Vehicle No.AP11Z 113 Metro Express in a rash and negligent manner without taking precautionary measures and lack of anticipation resulted in serious injuries to 3 Auto passengers and death of an Auto passenger on 14.01.04 at about 09:30 hours which is misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(ix)(a) of APSRTC (CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963.”

(c) “For having tarnished the image of APSRTC by causing the Fatal accident which is mis-conduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC (CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963.”

(iii) The 1^st respondent submitted his explanation, which was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. Witnesses were examined in his presence, and the 1^st respondent was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine. He expressed satisfaction with the enquiry process. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved.

(iv) Based on the report and after considering the explanation submitted by the 1^st respondent, the disciplinary authority passed final orders removing him from service by order dated 07.07.2004.

(v) Aggrieved by the removal, the 1^st respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered as I.D.No.60 of 2004. The Labour Court, by Award dated 17.08.2006, while accepting that the accident occurred due to the 1^st respondent’s failure to take precautions despite sufficient road space, nonetheless held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the auto-rickshaw driver. It therefore directed reinstatement of the 1^st respondent with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, excluding back wages.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court erred in holding that the accident was not solely due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent and in attributing contributory negligence to the auto driver. It is contended that the 1^st respondent, being the b