Telangana High Court
M. Bal Reddy, vs The Labour Courtiii, Rep. By Its ... on 18 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.25321 of 2014
And
WRIT PETITION No.6237 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
Challenge in these writ petitions is to the Award dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, in I.D.No.21 of 2010. For the sake of convenience of reference, the parties will hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Labour Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent Corporation as Driver on 08.08.1997 and was regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1999. An accident occurred on 29.01.2008 when the petitioner was on duty, driving the vehicle No.AP-10Z-5802 from Devarakonda to Achampet, the petitioner had suddenly turned the vehicle onto left side, due to sudden turning of an oncoming speeding auto with overload; and the auto went into a culvert and fell into a ditch, and two passengers of the auto died instantaneously, and four other passengers received grievous injuries. The petitioner was suspended from service and a charge sheet was issued by the respondent Corporation alleging rash and negligent driving by the petitioner resulting in the said fatal accident. It is the case of the petitioner that the Conductor who was the eyewitness to the accident deposed that due to the fault of the auto driver, the accident took 2 place and the auto hit the culvert and consequently fell into the ditch located on the side of road. Preliminary enquiry officer who has submitted report on the basis of the statement given by the crew has deposed that both the vehicle drivers were responsible, and based on it, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 14.05.2009. The appeal and also the review petitions filed by the petitioner against the removal order dated 14.05.2009 were also rejected. The petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing ID No.21 of 2010. The Labour Court, by the impugned order directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without backwages. Challenging the very reinstatement itself, the respondent Corporation filed WP No.25321 of 2014; and aggrieved by the non-granting of backwages, the petitioner filed WP No.6237 of 2015.
3. Heard Sri Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-TSRTC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend that the service conductor has clearly deposed that the accident occurred due to the fault of the auto driver, and the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on the basis of the statement given by the crew has deposed that both the vehicle drivers were responsible. Learned counsel contends that there is no evidence to substantiate such deposition and therefore the 3 enquiry is vitiated, and further the Labour Court concluded that the charge leveled against the petitioner is not proved, however, the action of the labour Court in denying the backwages from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement. It is also contended that the petitioner was unemployed from the date of removal i.e., 14.05.2009 till the date of reinstatement i.e., 03.01.2014.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation would contend that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and lack of anticipation on the part of petitioner, and that in the preliminary enquiry, the enquiry officer deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent failed to give opportunity to the petitioner after issuing Show Cause notice to the petitioner. It is also contended that in fact keeping in view the principles of natural justice, a copy of enquiry proceedings were supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.03.2009 calling for his objections on the enquiry report, and the petitioner offered his objections on 30.03.2009; and after the enquiry the charge leveled against the petitioner was held to be proved and as the act of the petitioner amounted to serious misconduct, a Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Registered Post to the residential address of the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed; and the petitioner neither 4 reported nor submitted his explanation to the Show Cause notice, and the respondent Corporation passed the proceedings dated 14.05.2009 removing the petitioner from service; and the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nalgonda, was considered and rejected as "Time Barred", vide proceedings dated 08.12.2009; and the revision petition filed by the petitioner to the Regional Manager, Nalgonda, also came to be rejected vide proceedings dated 12.04.2010. It is also contended that mere exoneration from criminal case does not automatically entitle the petitioner to reinstatement; and therefore the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the accident, a case was registered by the Police, Dindi Police Station, in Crime No.8 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337, 338 IPC. During the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer examined the driver and conductor of the bus; and the conductor of the bus deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver when the bus was coming in the opposite director, the auto driver turned the auto to the left due to confusion and the bus driver also turned the bus to the left , and the auto hit the culvert and fallen into the ditch. It is further observed by the Labour Court that the enquiry officer has examined only the driver 5 and conductor of the bus and the enquiry officer failed to examine the other independent witnesses to know the truth of the case and the respondent failed to give opportunity to the petitioner to examine material witnesses and the enquiry officer failed to examine the passengers of the bus and also the passengers of the auto or the driver of the auto, and the respondent failed to give opportunity to the petitioner after issuing Show Cause notice when it is the bounden duty of the respondent to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain about his grievance before the Depot Manager, and the respondent failed to give the same as per the records available. The criminal case tried before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gowraram, also ended in acquittal of the petitioner for the reason that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Labour Court framed the necessary points for consideration as to whether the punishment of removal from service was justified, and as to whether the principles of natural justice were followed while conducting domestic enquiry. The Labour Court, after due enquiry and appreciating the evidence available on record, and also considering the judgment of the High Court in K.H.A.Swamy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kukatpally; and Khemchand v. Union of India, and also observing that there is no sufficient evidence and good grounds to remove the petitioner from service, and punishment of removal from service being shockingly disproportionate, held that the 6 petitioner is entitled to reinstatement of service, however, not entitled to backwages.
7. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record, W.P.No.25321 of 2014 is dismissed; and W.P.No.6237 of 2015 is partly-allowed by modifying the impugned Award only to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to notional increment/s, while treating the period of removal till reinstatement as continuity of service, however, without backwages. The rest of the impugned Award dated 10.09.2013 shall remain intact. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 18th July, 2024 ksm