Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs The Presiding Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 3619 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                               W.A.No.271 of 2019

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

09.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22499 of

2003.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that respondent

No.2/workman was serving as a Driver in the services of APSRTC

(now TSRTC) and on 17.01.1998, a bus bearing No.AP9Z 2954 was

involved in an accident. A preliminary enquiry took place and

respondent No.2/workman was suspended on 07.03.1998. He was

charge sheeted and thereafter, an order of removal was passed on

19.08.1998. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred and the same

was dismissed on 21.12.1998. A review petition was preferred and

the same was also dismissed on 03.11.2000. Thereafter,

respondent No.2/workman raised an Industrial Dispute. The

Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and has directed

reinstatement of respondent No.2/workman with continuity of

service and with 50% back wages but without attendant benefits.

The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the

finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was a perverse finding

keeping in view the appreciation done by the Labour Court.

This Court has carefully gone through the award passed by

the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after appreciating the

evidence on record that there was no eye witness at the time of

accident, there were no marks on the bus body or bumper of the

bus, there were no visible marks that the bus has run over the

cyclist and there was no damage to the cycle, as per the evidence

of the Chief Inspector, Devarakonda, has arrived at a conclusion

that the cyclist did not hit the bumper nor came into contact with

the bus. The Labour Court, after meticulously analysing the entire

evidence, has given a finding that there was no rash and negligent

driving on the part of the respondent/workman and the

Corporation has failed to prove the charges levelled against the

respondent/workman before the Labour court. The Enquiry

Officer's findings were held to be perverse. The learned Single

Judge in, paras 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, has held as

under:-

"7. This Court, having perused the record, found that there is no error of fact or error of law which warrants interference of this Court to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court.

8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed."

The learned Single Judge has also meticulously scanned the

entire evidence and has arrived at a conclusion that the finding of

the Labour Court does not warrant any interference.

In the considered opinion of this court, as the findings of the

Enquiry Officer were based upon surmises and conjunctures, they

were rightly been interfered with by the Labour Court and the

employer was not able to prove the misconduct before the Labour

Court. Therefore, this court also does not find any reason to

interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court nor with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Admission is declined. The writ appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 19.11.2021 JSU