THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.19276 of 2013
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records pertaining to the I.D. No. 1/2008 dated 8-3-2013 on the file of the Chairman Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Godavarikhani, Karimnagr District is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Driver with continuity of service and backwages and all other attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
2) The case of the petitioner is that he has joined the respondent Corporation as driver on 13.05.1998 and his services were regularized on 01.01.2005. While so, on 29.05.2005, when the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-4499 from Hyderabad to Korutla, he heard a sound of breakage of spring plates fixed to the front wheels. At that time the vehicle was between Gajwel and Siddipet. Immediately, he applied brakes and slowed down the speed of the bus, but due to heavy rain, the bus was dragged to the right side. In the meanwhile, another vehicle came in opposite direction and colluded with the bus driven by the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the said accident, he also sustained fracture injuries to his leg, thereby, he became unconscious and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Hyderabad. Basing on the report of PK, J 2 WP_19276_2013 the TI-II dated 21.11.2005 as well as the Joint Accident Committee report, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge sheet dated 08.02.2006 was also issued for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Being dissatisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered and thereafter, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service, vide proceedings dated 06.09.2006 and the same was confirmed in appeal and review vide proceedings dated 02.01.2007 and 06.07.2007 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.D. No.1 of 2008 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed by the Labour Court vide impugned award. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3) Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
4) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court failed to see that the accident was occurred during the night time and as there was a heavy rain at that time, the bus was skipped. Hence, the petitioner is not at all negligent and the accident was occurred between two buses on head on collusion. As such, the driver of the private bus is responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the judgment of the Criminal Court in which the petitioner was acquitted.
PK, J
3 WP_19276_2013
After considering the entire evidence on record the Criminal Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not at all negligent in causing the accident. Hence, the Labour Court grossly erred in taking into consideration the material which is not relevant to the issue. It is further contended that the Labour Court being an original authority ought to have taken into consideration the entire evidence on record but without there being any cogent evidence on record and only on assumptions and presumptions the Labour Court has given a perverse finding. It is further contended that the Labour Court grossly erred in holding that the petitioner was negligent in driving without there being any eye witness to the accident and dismissed the I.D. by taking into consideration the earlier misconduct of the petitioner contrary to catena of judgments of the Apex Court holding that the lis in the present dispute alone has to be taken into consideration for deciding the matter whereas in the present case the Labour Court has taken into account the earlier misconduct of the petitioner while dismissing the I.D., which cannot be countenanced. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied on the order dated 18.08.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.1714 of 2011.
5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner, which resulted in death of 8 passengers and injuries to 11 passengers PK, J 4 WP_19276_2013 besides heavy damage to the bus. Hence, the respondents have issued the charge sheet dated 08.02.2006. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, a detailed enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Regulations of the Corporation by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case at every stage of the enquiry. Since the charge was held proved in the enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on 06.09.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed appeal before the second respondent and the same was rejected on 02.01.2007 and even the Review Authority has also confirmed the punishment of removal on 06.07.2007. After considering the evidence on record, the same was upheld by the Labour Court. Hence, the respondents are justified in imposing the punishment of removal on the petitioner for the proven charge and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective counsel.
7) A perusal of the record discloses that on 29.10.2005 while the petitioner was driving the bus from Hyderabad to Korutla an accident was occurred due to dash against a private bus bearing No.AP11-T- 8888 of Indur College of Engineering and Technology coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, 8 passengers have died and PK, J 5 WP_19276_2013 11 passengers have received grievous injuries travelling in both the busses, besides causing heavy damage to RTC bus bearing No.AP-11- Z-4499. On receipt of the information, the TI-II of Korutla Depot rushed to the spot and submitted his report dated 21.11.2005 holding that the petitioner was responsible for accident. On the basis of the said report, charge sheet dated 08.02.2006 was issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which, he submitted a representation on 13.03.2006 seeking to supply connected documents and accordingly the same were supplied to him. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted another representation dated 10.04.2006 seeking extension of time for two months for submitting his explanation to the charge sheet issued against him. However, the respondents refused to grant further time and thereby ordered for a detailed enquiry. The record further reveals that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry wherein he was afforded the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Further, the petitioner has filed a memo under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court stating that he is not challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry report and requested the Labour Court to adjudicate on the quantum of punishment imposed on him. Thus, the only question before the Labour Court as well as this Court is with regard to proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner with that of the proven charge.
PK, J
6 WP_19276_2013
8) Admittedly, in the accident in question, 8 passengers were died
and 11 passengers were grievously injured. Though the petitioner
pleaded that due to mechanical defects when he applied brakes, all of a sudden, the bus was dragged to the right side and dashed against the opposite coming private bus bearing No.AP-11-T-8888 of Indur College of Engineering and Technology between Remmenaguda and Kodakandla Village, he has not placed any evidence on record to prove that there were mechanical defects in the RTC bus being driven by the petitioner at the time of accident. On the other hand, the respondents have filed copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) Report dated 31.10.2005, wherein the MVI has clearly opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.
9) In view of the categorical findings of the Labour Court, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents are justified in imposing the punishment of removal against the petitioner for the proven charge of driving the bus in rash and negligent in high speed with lack of anticipation resulting in death of 8 passengers and grievous injuries to 11 passengers, besides heavy damage to the RTC bus.
10) Coming to the judgment relied by the petitioner is concerned, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case since in the case on hand the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the PK, J 7 WP_19276_2013 domestic enquiry report and confined only to the point of quantum of punishment.
11) For the afore-mentioned reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 18-11-2023.
sur