HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 5394 OF 2010
ORDER:
Award dated 16.11.2006 in I.D.No. 132 of 2004 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad is assailed in this Writ Petition only to the extent it denied the backwages and other attendant benefits.
2. Petitioner joined as Driver in the Corporation in 1997 and he was removed from service on 09.02.2001 on the charge that he drove the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 2433 in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of eight-year-old girl and loss of revenue to Corporation. The Appeal preferred against the said order was negatived which gave rise to a Revision before the 1st respondent. The said Revision was also rejected on untenable grounds. Thereafter, petitioner preferred review petition. Since the said Petition was not considered, petitioner is stated to have raised I.D.No. 132 of 2004. It is the case of petitioner that while he was driving the crime vehicle on 29.04.2000 from Narayankhed to Hyderabad, bullock carts wre parked near Kolapally Thanda facing towards Narayankhed, all of a sudden, one girl of eight years came on to the road from right to left side. Noticing the same, petitioner took precautionary measures but the said girl who was in running 2 condition could not control her movements and contacted with bus at the right side and fell down on the road.
The Labour Court vide Award impugned set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back-wages.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the girl but not of his client, hence, he was acquitted in criminal case. Secondly, it is contended that petitioner was not employed gainfully till he was reinstated into service. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya 1. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court while setting aside the removal order ought to have allowed all benefits including back-wages.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that Labour Court is right in its approach and passed the Award which warrants no interference at all at the hands of this Court.
5. The case of petitioner is that the deceased suddenly crossed the road, therefore, there was no chance for him to assess the accident and by seeing the girl, he applied sudden brakes but the deceased lost her balance and slipped towards the bus. A 1 (2013) 10 SCC 324 3 perusal of the Award and the material on record goes to show that the deceased girl tried to cross the road without observing the bus movements and the accident occurred due to her negligence. Petitioner was charged under Section 304-A IPC. and he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Andole at Jogipet and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months. On Appeal, he was acquitted by the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2002 and the said judgment attained finality. The Labour Court observed that when the petitioner is acquitted from the criminal Court after due trial by observing the principles of evidence and necessary procedure, the findings in the enquiry proceedings will vitiate, and thus holding, set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of petitioner. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that when the Labour Court held him not responsible and the appellate Court also acquitted him of the charge, it is not appropriate on the part of the Labour Court to deny back-wages.
7. This Court, after hearing the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for Corporation, is in disagreement with the contention raised by the petitioner that he is eligible for 100% back-wages for, the contention of Corporation is that petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Andole at Jogipet and was 4 sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and on Appeal, he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner, taking cue from the contention of learned Standing Counsel, urged that at least 75% back-wages may be granted in favour of petitioner as he is not gainfully employed during the subject period. It is never the case of Corporation also that petitioner was employed elsewhere. Therefore, acceding to the said request, to balance the interest of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is reasonable to grant 50% back-wages.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed in part directing the Corporation to award 50% back-wages for the period for which he is entitled to. No order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 05th October 2023 ksld