Telangana High Court

Munja Srinivas vs The Andhra Pradesh, State Road ... on 18 November, 2023

Bench: Pulla Karthik

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                    WRIT PETITION No.19276 of 2013
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records pertaining to the I.D. No. 1/2008 dated 8-3-2013 on the file of the Chairman Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Godavarikhani, Karimnagr District is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Driver with continuity of service and backwages and all other attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

2) The case of the petitioner is that he has joined the respondent

Corporation as driver on 13.05.1998 and his services were regularized

on 01.01.2005. While so, on 29.05.2005, when the petitioner was

driving the bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-4499 from Hyderabad to Korutla,

he heard a sound of breakage of spring plates fixed to the front

wheels. At that time the vehicle was between Gajwel and Siddipet.

Immediately, he applied brakes and slowed down the speed of the

bus, but due to heavy rain, the bus was dragged to the right side. In

the meanwhile, another vehicle came in opposite direction and

colluded with the bus driven by the petitioner. It is the further case of

the petitioner that in the said accident, he also sustained fracture

injuries to his leg, thereby, he became unconscious and he was

shifted to Government Hospital, Hyderabad. Basing on the report of PK, J 2 WP_19276_2013

the TI-II dated 21.11.2005 as well as the Joint Accident Committee

report, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge

sheet dated 08.02.2006 was also issued for which the petitioner has

submitted his explanation. Being dissatisfied with the said

explanation, an enquiry was ordered and thereafter, he was imposed

the punishment of removal from service, vide proceedings dated

06.09.2006 and the same was confirmed in appeal and review vide

proceedings dated 02.01.2007 and 06.07.2007 respectively.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.D. No.1 of 2008 before the Labour

Court and the same was dismissed by the Labour Court vide

impugned award. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3) Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent Corporation.

4) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the Labour Court failed to see that the accident was occurred

during the night time and as there was a heavy rain at that time, the

bus was skipped. Hence, the petitioner is not at all negligent and the

accident was occurred between two buses on head on collusion. As

such, the driver of the private bus is responsible for the accident. It is

further contended that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the

judgment of the Criminal Court in which the petitioner was acquitted.

                                                                      PK, J
                                   3                        WP_19276_2013

After considering the entire evidence on record the Criminal Court

came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not at all negligent in

causing the accident. Hence, the Labour Court grossly erred in taking

into consideration the material which is not relevant to the issue. It is

further contended that the Labour Court being an original authority

ought to have taken into consideration the entire evidence on record

but without there being any cogent evidence on record and only on

assumptions and presumptions the Labour Court has given a

perverse finding. It is further contended that the Labour Court

grossly erred in holding that the petitioner was negligent in driving

without there being any eye witness to the accident and dismissed the

I.D. by taking into consideration the earlier misconduct of the

petitioner contrary to catena of judgments of the Apex Court holding

that the lis in the present dispute alone has to be taken into

consideration for deciding the matter whereas in the present case the

Labour Court has taken into account the earlier misconduct of the

petitioner while dismissing the I.D., which cannot be countenanced.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied on the order

dated 18.08.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P. No.1714 of 2011.

5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that

the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner,

which resulted in death of 8 passengers and injuries to 11 passengers PK, J 4 WP_19276_2013

besides heavy damage to the bus. Hence, the respondents have

issued the charge sheet dated 08.02.2006. Since the explanation

submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, a detailed enquiry

was conducted in accordance with the Regulations of the Corporation

by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his

case at every stage of the enquiry. Since the charge was held proved

in the enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on

06.09.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed appeal

before the second respondent and the same was rejected on

02.01.2007 and even the Review Authority has also confirmed the

punishment of removal on 06.07.2007. After considering the evidence

on record, the same was upheld by the Labour Court. Hence, the

respondents are justified in imposing the punishment of removal on

the petitioner for the proven charge and therefore prayed to dismiss

the writ petition.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the

respective counsel.

7) A perusal of the record discloses that on 29.10.2005 while the

petitioner was driving the bus from Hyderabad to Korutla an accident

was occurred due to dash against a private bus bearing No.AP11-T-

8888 of Indur College of Engineering and Technology coming in the

opposite direction, as a result of which, 8 passengers have died and PK, J 5 WP_19276_2013

11 passengers have received grievous injuries travelling in both the

busses, besides causing heavy damage to RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-

Z-4499. On receipt of the information, the TI-II of Korutla Depot

rushed to the spot and submitted his report dated 21.11.2005 holding

that the petitioner was responsible for accident. On the basis of the

said report, charge sheet dated 08.02.2006 was issued to the

petitioner, pursuant to which, he submitted a representation on

13.03.2006 seeking to supply connected documents and accordingly

the same were supplied to him. Thereafter, the petitioner has

submitted another representation dated 10.04.2006 seeking extension

of time for two months for submitting his explanation to the charge

sheet issued against him. However, the respondents refused to grant

further time and thereby ordered for a detailed enquiry. The record

further reveals that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry

wherein he was afforded the opportunity to cross examine the

witnesses. Further, the petitioner has filed a memo under Section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court stating

that he is not challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry report

and requested the Labour Court to adjudicate on the quantum of

punishment imposed on him. Thus, the only question before the

Labour Court as well as this Court is with regard to proportionality of

the punishment imposed on the petitioner with that of the proven

charge.

                                                                      PK, J
                                   6                        WP_19276_2013



8)     Admittedly, in the accident in question, 8 passengers were died

and 11 passengers were grievously injured.       Though the petitioner

pleaded that due to mechanical defects when he applied brakes, all of

a sudden, the bus was dragged to the right side and dashed against

the opposite coming private bus bearing No.AP-11-T-8888 of Indur

College of Engineering and Technology between Remmenaguda and

Kodakandla Village, he has not placed any evidence on record to prove

that there were mechanical defects in the RTC bus being driven by the

petitioner at the time of accident. On the other hand, the respondents

have filed copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) Report dated

31.10.2005, wherein the MVI has clearly opined that the accident was

not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

9) In view of the categorical findings of the Labour Court, referred

to above, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents are