Telangana High Court
The Regional Manager, Apsrtc., ... vs Sri. P. Sambasiva Rao, Nizamabad ... on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 22535 OF 2009
ORDER:
Respondent, a State-owned Corporation, is before
this Court assailing the Award dated 05.04.2005 in I.D. No. 57 of
2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad whereby
and whereunder removal order dated 28.04.2001 was set aside
and Corporation was directed to the 1st respondent into service
with continuity of service and one-fourth back-wages.
2. It is the case of the Corporation that the 1st
respondent was appointed as driver in their organisation. While he
was discharging his duties at Nizamabad Depot, he was removed
from service by proceedings dated 21.8.04.2001, duly following the
procedure prescribed, on the charge that he caused fatal accident
involving bus bearing No. AP 9Z 8789 with an auto bearing No.
ABT 2138 on route Nizamabad-Nandipet, on 25.08.2000 due to
lack of anticipation. In the said accident, four inmates of the auto
sustained grievous injuries besides heavy damages to the auto and
minor damages to the bus. Questioning the removal order, the 1st
respondent filed Appeal and Revision and both of them were
rejected which resulted in the 1st respondent approaching the
Tribunal. The complaint of the Corporation is that the 2nd
respondent without properly appreciating the circumstances of the
case, passed the Award impugned.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri
Thoom Srinivas submits that the Tribunal having held that
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent manner without
anticipating the possibility of vehicle coming from Gundaram Road
to Gundaram ought not to have directed reinstatement with one-
fourth backwages. According to him, the Tribunal observed that
Enquiry Officer rightly found the workman guilty of the charge,
however, erred in finding that there was contributory negligence
on the part of auto driver. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC v.
A.T. Mane {(2005) 3 SCC 254}, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to particular
conclusion, normally, it is not open to the Courts to substitute
their subjective opinion, hence, the Tribunal is wrong in
disturbing the finding of the disciplinary authority, is what the
contention of the learned Standing Counsel. He further relies on
the judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P. Agarwal where
reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser
punishment neither backwages nor continuity of service nor
consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary
consequence of such reinstatement and where the misconduct is
held to be proved and reinstatement itself is a consequential
benefit arising from imposing of a lesser punishment, award of
backwages may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and
punishing the employer, hence, Award is perverse and liable to be
set aside.
4. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for
the 1st respondent. He submits that the Tribunal being the fact-
finding authority, had considered the material available before it
elaborately and came to such a conclusion, which need not be
interfered with, hence, requests the Court to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
5. It is, no doubt, true that the Tribunal as regards
negligence aspect, gave a finding that the 1st respondent was guilty
of the charge. For coming to such a conclusion, it relied on the
evidence of passenger - eye witness who stated that a lorry came
from opposite direction before Gundaram cross road and after
crossing the lorry, the bus driver blown horn, but suddenly one
auto rickshaw came from Gundaram Village to proceed to
Nizamabad direction in which nearly 10 to 12 passengers were
traveling and noticing the same, the bus driver had applied
sudden brakes and took the vehicle to its right side, at the same
time, the auto driver had also turned the auto to the right side of
the bus which came in contract with the bus leading to the
accident. The statement of the eye witness shows that after
noticing the auto, petitioner applied sudden brakes. Simply by
blowing the horn, responsibility of the driver would not cease and
he is bound to take precautions with anticipation. The evidence of
Sri K. Sarath Prasad, who conducted preliminary enquiry and
drawn rough sketch of the spot of accident shows that there were
skid marks of bus tyres driven to an extent of 30 feet and the bus
stopped only after hitting the tree by the side of road and bus
crushed the auto. At the same time, the said Sarath Prasad also
deposed that auto was carrying more than eight persons at that
time and auto driver is also responsible for the accident which was
fortified by the statement of eye witness that auto came on
Gundaram road without observing the vehicle traffic. There is
every possibility, when the auto was overloaded, its driver might
have lost control over the vehicle and came in contact with the
subject bus. It therefore, amounts to contributory negligence. In
the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal relied on the judgment
placed before it by the 1st respondent in Depot Manager, APSRTC
Bus Depot, Khammam v. the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Warangal (1995 I LLN 59). In the said judgment, the
Labour Court, Warangal held that there was contributory
negligence and passed an Award setting aside the removal order
and directed payment of one-fourth backwages and continuity of
service which direction was upheld by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. Following the said judgment, in this case also, the
Tribunal reinstated the 1st respondent with continuity of service
and one-fourth backwages. This Court does not find any
perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal to exercise
its revisionary jurisdiction, therefore, of the view that the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
order as to costs.
7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall
stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
31st October 2023
ksld
