Telangana High Court
Ch. Ramchandra Reddy vs The Depot Manager, on 27 August, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 12672 OF 2016
O R D E R:
Petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition the Award
dated 23.03.2015 in I.D.No. 14 of 2014 on the file of the Labour
Court-II, Hyderabad, insofar as it denied back-wages and
awarded stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative
effect.
2. Petitioner was stated to have been appointed as a
casual driver in 1989. While so, he was removed from service on
25.06.2013 on the charge of rash and negligent driving. On
Appeal and Revision, as the said punishment was confirmed,
petitioner raised I.D., wherein the Labour Court modified the
punishment of removal to that of stoppage of three increments
with cumulative effect and denied back wages and also
attendant benefits, but awarded continuity of service. It is
stated pursuant to the Award, petitioner was reinstated into
service on 23.05.2015.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. Venkateshwar
Rao strenuously contends that the Labour Court observed that
there is an element of negligence on the part of car driver also,
however, ordered stoppage of increments. According to him,
criminal case booked against petitioner ended in acquittal vide
judgment dated 03.04.2015.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri
A. Srinivas Reddy, though no counter-affidavit is filed, submits
that the Labour Court had already taken lenient view in the
matter and modified the punishment of removal from service to
the one directed in the Award impugned, hence, no further
interference need not be warranted.
5. The prime contention of petitioner is that during
domestic enquiry, service conductor Sri G.L. Reddy clearly
deposed that car driver himself dashed the bus under confusion
and stated the situation clearly by saying that car driver was
responsible for the said accident. A perusal of the Award
impugned discloses that the Labour Court considered the
statements of petitioner and service conductor and the enquiry
report wherein it was clearly noted that after dashing the bus,
car went two yards back side and opined that had the car
dashed the bus and bus was slowed down, car would not have
been gone two yards back, therefore, the claim of petitioner was
negative in the enquiry. On perusal of the photographs filed in
the Court along with material papers, it shows that the right
side of Indica car was totally damaged and equally, right side
portion of bus was damaged; on seeing the position of the bus,
it clearly shows that bus had come to the extreme right side of
the road; by putting two together and along with the statements
of conductor and driver, it is clear that driver of bus ie.
petitioner noticed vehicle in front of him and tried to overtake
the same and turned the bus to right side and having noticed
the car, he might have slowed down, the fact remains that
petitioner took the bus more than middle line and went to
extreme right side and the impact between car and bus clearly
indicates the high speed of both the vehicles. In that scenario,
Labour Court concluded that there is lack of anticipation on the
part of petitioner and equally an element of negligence on the
part of driver of car. However, the Labour Court, taking into
consideration the long service put in by petitioner and the fact
that it is only gross negligence that resulted in accident
obviously there is an element of negligence on the part of car
driver also because of place of allegations as per the sketch, to
mitigate the punishment proportionate to the misconduct,
imposed lesser punishment.
6. However, in the facts and circumstances narrated
by learned counsel for petitioner and since the Labour Court
also observed that there is contributory negligence on the part
of car driver, this Court is of the opinion that further lenience
may be shown in favour of petitioner.
7. Hence, the Award impugned is modified to the
extent of imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments
with cumulative effect to that of without cumulative effect. Rest
of the Award remains as it is. With this, the Writ Petition is
allowed in part. No costs.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
27th August 2024
ksld
