P.Janardhan, Medak ... vs The Regional Manager, Medak ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2907 Tel

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

               WRIT PETITION No. 5394 OF 2010

     ORDER:

Award dated 16.11.2006 in I.D.No. 132 of 2004 on

the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad is assailed in this Writ

Petition only to the extent it denied the backwages and other

attendant benefits.

2. Petitioner joined as Driver in the Corporation in

1997 and he was removed from service on 09.02.2001 on the

charge that he drove the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 2433 in a rash

and negligent manner and caused death of eight-year-old girl and

loss of revenue to Corporation. The Appeal preferred against the

said order was negatived which gave rise to a Revision before the

1st respondent. The said Revision was also rejected on untenable

grounds. Thereafter, petitioner preferred review petition. Since the

said Petition was not considered, petitioner is stated to have raised

I.D.No. 132 of 2004. It is the case of petitioner that while he was

driving the crime vehicle on 29.04.2000 from Narayankhed to

Hyderabad, bullock carts wre parked near Kolapally Thanda facing

towards Narayankhed, all of a sudden, one girl of eight years came

on to the road from right to left side. Noticing the same, petitioner

took precautionary measures but the said girl who was in running

condition could not control her movements and contacted with

bus at the right side and fell down on the road.

The Labour Court vide Award impugned set aside

the removal order and directed reinstatement of petitioner into

service with continuity of service but without back-wages.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha

Goud submits that accident occurred due to negligence on the

part of the girl but not of his client, hence, he was acquitted in

criminal case. Secondly, it is contended that petitioner was not

employed gainfully till he was reinstated into service. In this

regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak

Mahavidyalaya 1. According to the learned counsel, the Labour

Court while setting aside the removal order ought to have allowed

all benefits including back-wages.

4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that Labour

Court is right in its approach and passed the Award which

warrants no interference at all at the hands of this Court.

5. The case of petitioner is that the deceased suddenly

crossed the road, therefore, there was no chance for him to assess

the accident and by seeing the girl, he applied sudden brakes but

the deceased lost her balance and slipped towards the bus. A

(2013) 10 SCC 324

perusal of the Award and the material on record goes to show that

the deceased girl tried to cross the road without observing the bus

movements and the accident occurred due to her negligence.

Petitioner was charged under Section 304-A IPC. and he was

convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Andole at Jogipet

and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months. On

Appeal, he was acquitted by the III Additional Sessions Judge

(FTC), Medak in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2002 and the said

judgment attained finality. The Labour Court observed that when

the petitioner is acquitted from the criminal Court after due trial

by observing the principles of evidence and necessary procedure,

the findings in the enquiry proceedings will vitiate, and thus

holding, set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of

petitioner. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that when the

Labour Court held him not responsible and the appellate Court

also acquitted him of the charge, it is not appropriate on the part

of the Labour Court to deny back-wages.

7. This Court, after hearing the elaborate

arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned

Standing Counsel for Corporation, is in disagreement with the

contention raised by the petitioner that he is eligible for 100%

back-wages for, the contention of Corporation is that petitioner

was acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. by the

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Andole at Jogipet and was

sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and on

Appeal, he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, hence, the

Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner,

taking cue from the contention of learned Standing Counsel, urged

that at least 75% back-wages may be granted in favour of

petitioner as he is not gainfully employed during the subject

period. It is never the case of Corporation also that petitioner was

employed elsewhere. Therefore, acceding to the said request, to

balance the interest of both the parties, this Court is of the

opinion that it is reasonable to grant 50% back-wages.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed in part

directing the Corporation to award 50% back-wages for the period

for which he is entitled to. No order as to costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

--------------------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

05th October 2023

ksld