The Depot Secretary vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 193 AP

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

            WRIT PETITION No. 871 OF 2023


ORAL ORDER:

           Heard Ms.P.Indumathi, Ld. Counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri Ch.Mallikarjuna Rao, Ld. Counsel for the

Writ Petitioner, Sri M.Jaya Prakash, Ld. Counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri M.Solomon Raju, Ld. Standing Counsel for

APSRTC and Ld. Government Pleader for Services-III.

     2.    Award of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Guntur dated 10.12.2020 in Industrial Dispute

No.85 of 2015 is challenged in the present Writ Petition.

Though the Impugned Order was passed on 10.12.2020,

the present Writ Petition is filed only on 02.01.2023. On

perusal of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition,

it is noticed that the said Affidavit is bereft of reasons for

approaching this Court with so much delay as the

Impugned Order came         to be    passed way back on

10.12.2020.
                                   2


     3.      On perusal of the Award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Guntur, it reveals

that the Writ Petitioner was subjected to disciplinary

proceedings and imposed punishment of treating the

suspension period as not on duty (from date of his removal

till the date of his reporting to duty) and also withholding

of one annual increment with cumulative effect for a period

of two years. It transpires from the record that on enquiry,

the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Guntur held

that the punishment imposed against the Writ Petitioner is

justified by holding as under:

              "36) In this reference, absolutely there is no
          dispute from the workman about his driving the
          vehicle AP 28z 5451 on 24.04.2010, and its
          involvement in accident. But the passengers
          P.Sunitha, and P.Ramani, who travelled in his
          bus during the accident, when they have not
          identified the workman as driver of the vehicle
          who drove the same during the accident, in that
          matter he was acquitted from criminal case and
          this non identification by the above witnesses
          during the criminal case must have been
          deliberately done by them with a view to bail out
          the workman from the criminal charge and
          possibility of their gained over by him to give
          such statements cannot be ruled out. Therefore,
          the Judgment rendered in C.C.223/2015 cannot
          be made basis and to hold the charge levelled
          against him workman in the domestic inquiry is
          not made out.
                                   3


              37) When it is accepted in the foregoing
          discussion, by disbelieving the challenge made
          by the workman to the punishment, that charge
          leveled against him in the domestic inquiry was
          made out and he too contributed in taking place
          of accident, in which not only the driver of van
          succumbed to injuries but also nearly 15
          passengers sustained with minor injuries and
          nearly 4 passengers sustained major injuries,
          having regard to this, though the second
          respondent being generous in setting aside the

removal order, has rightly awarded the impugned punishment so as not only to deter the workman but also similarly placed workmen in causing accidents while driving public utility services of APSRTC, which will pose a threat to the lives of the commuters. Therefore, it is sustainable land justified in law and the point is answered accordingly.

38) In point No.1, it was held and decided the punishment awarded by the second respondent vide its proceedings in Ex.M20 to the workman is justified in law, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief and the point is answered accordingly.

39) In the result, the reference is answered holding the punishment awarded by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC (MTM), Vijayawada/second respondent vide its order dated 16.06.2011, to withhold the annual increment of workman Sri N.S.Rao, E.350088, Driver, for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the intervening period from the date of his removal till reporting to duty as Not on duty, is justified."

4. In view of the facts mentioned herein above,

this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Impugned

Order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the Industrial Tribunal

Cum Labour Court, Guntur in Industrial Dispute No.85 of

2015, both, on merits as well as due to laches.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed

in terms of this order.

________________________________ G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 18.01.2023.

SDP/SR

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 871 OF 2023

18.01.2023

W

SDP/SR