THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.A.No.271 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
09.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22499 of
2003.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that respondent
No.2/workman was serving as a Driver in the services of APSRTC (now TSRTC) and on 17.01.1998, a bus bearing No.AP9Z 2954 was involved in an accident. A preliminary enquiry took place and respondent No.2/workman was suspended on 07.03.1998. He was charge sheeted and thereafter, an order of removal was passed on 19.08.1998. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed on 21.12.1998. A review petition was preferred and the same was also dismissed on 03.11.2000. Thereafter, respondent No.2/workman raised an Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and has directed reinstatement of respondent No.2/workman with continuity of service and with 50% back wages but without attendant benefits. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was a perverse finding keeping in view the appreciation done by the Labour Court.
This Court has carefully gone through the award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record that there was no eye witness at the time of accident, there were no marks on the bus body or bumper of the 2 bus, there were no visible marks that the bus has run over the cyclist and there was no damage to the cycle, as per the evidence of the Chief Inspector, Devarakonda, has arrived at a conclusion that the cyclist did not hit the bumper nor came into contact with the bus. The Labour Court, after meticulously analysing the entire evidence, has given a finding that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent/workman and the Corporation has failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondent/workman before the Labour court. The Enquiry Officer's findings were held to be perverse. The learned Single Judge in, paras 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, has held as under:-
"7. This Court, having perused the record, found that there is no error of fact or error of law which warrants interference of this Court to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court.
8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed."
The learned Single Judge has also meticulously scanned the entire evidence and has arrived at a conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference.
In the considered opinion of this court, as the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based upon surmises and conjunctures, they were rightly been interfered with by the Labour Court and the employer was not able to prove the misconduct before the Labour Court. Therefore, this court also does not find any reason to 3 interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court nor with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Admission is declined. The writ appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 19.11.2021 JSU