HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 22535 OF 2009
ORDER:
Respondent, a State-owned Corporation, is before this Court assailing the Award dated 05.04.2005 in I.D. No. 57 of 2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder removal order dated 28.04.2001 was set aside and Corporation was directed to the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service and one-fourth back-wages.
2. It is the case of the Corporation that the 1st respondent was appointed as driver in their organisation. While he was discharging his duties at Nizamabad Depot, he was removed from service by proceedings dated 21.8.04.2001, duly following the procedure prescribed, on the charge that he caused fatal accident involving bus bearing No. AP 9Z 8789 with an auto bearing No. ABT 2138 on route Nizamabad-Nandipet, on 25.08.2000 due to lack of anticipation. In the said accident, four inmates of the auto sustained grievous injuries besides heavy damages to the auto and minor damages to the bus. Questioning the removal order, the 1st respondent filed Appeal and Revision and both of them were rejected which resulted in the 1st respondent approaching the Tribunal. The complaint of the Corporation is that the 2nd 2 respondent without properly appreciating the circumstances of the case, passed the Award impugned.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri Thoom Srinivas submits that the Tribunal having held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent manner without anticipating the possibility of vehicle coming from Gundaram Road to Gundaram ought not to have directed reinstatement with one- fourth backwages. According to him, the Tribunal observed that Enquiry Officer rightly found the workman guilty of the charge, however, erred in finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of auto driver. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane {(2005) 3 SCC 254}, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to particular conclusion, normally, it is not open to the Courts to substitute their subjective opinion, hence, the Tribunal is wrong in disturbing the finding of the disciplinary authority, is what the contention of the learned Standing Counsel. He further relies on the judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P. Agarwal where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment neither backwages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement and where the misconduct is held to be proved and reinstatement itself is a consequential 3 benefit arising from imposing of a lesser punishment, award of backwages may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer, hence, Award is perverse and liable to be set aside.
4. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. He submits that the Tribunal being the fact- finding authority, had considered the material available before it elaborately and came to such a conclusion, which need not be interfered with, hence, requests the Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. It is, no doubt, true that the Tribunal as regards negligence aspect, gave a finding that the 1st respondent was guilty of the charge. For coming to such a conclusion, it relied on the evidence of passenger - eye witness who stated that a lorry came from opposite direction before Gundaram cross road and after crossing the lorry, the bus driver blown horn, but suddenly one auto rickshaw came from Gundaram Village to proceed to Nizamabad direction in which nearly 10 to 12 passengers were traveling and noticing the same, the bus driver had applied sudden brakes and took the vehicle to its right side, at the same time, the auto driver had also turned the auto to the right side of the bus which came in contract with the bus leading to the 4 accident. The statement of the eye witness shows that after noticing the auto, petitioner applied sudden brakes. Simply by blowing the horn, responsibility of the driver would not cease and he is bound to take precautions with anticipation. The evidence of Sri K. Sarath Prasad, who conducted preliminary enquiry and drawn rough sketch of the spot of accident shows that there were skid marks of bus tyres driven to an extent of 30 feet and the bus stopped only after hitting the tree by the side of road and bus crushed the auto. At the same time, the said Sarath Prasad also deposed that auto was carrying more than eight persons at that time and auto driver is also responsible for the accident which was fortified by the statement of eye witness that auto came on Gundaram road without observing the vehicle traffic. There is every possibility, when the auto was overloaded, its driver might have lost control over the vehicle and came in contact with the subject bus. It therefore, amounts to contributory negligence. In the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal relied on the judgment placed before it by the 1st respondent in Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Khammam v. the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal (1995 I LLN 59). In the said judgment, the Labour Court, Warangal held that there was contributory negligence and passed an Award setting aside the removal order and directed payment of one-fourth backwages and continuity of 5 service which direction was upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Following the said judgment, in this case also, the Tribunal reinstated the 1st respondent with continuity of service and one-fourth backwages. This Court does not find any perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction, therefore, of the view that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 31st October 2023 ksld