HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 2169 OF 2005 21-08-2014 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam …Appellant And Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, rep., by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 2169 OF 2005
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The 2nd respondent (for short, ‘the respondent’) was employed in the appellant depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. A charge sheet was issued to him on 04- 11-1988 framing two charges. The first was that while on duty on route No. 48 on 23-08-1988, the respondent caused an accident near Kurupam Market of Visakhapatnam by dashing against a cyclist by name K. Srinivasarao causing his death. The second charge was that the respondent failed to report the incident to the police or to the authorities of the depot. The respondent filed a reply denying the charges. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the charges were held proved. Based on that, an order of removal was passed on 24-03-1989. The departmental appeal filed before the Regional Manager was rejected. Thereupon, the respondent filed I.D No. 236 of 1990 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Labour Court’) under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Through its award dated 30-12-1993, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal. Punishment of suspension without wages for a period of one month was imposed. The back wages for a period of one month were denied. Challenging the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 8592 of 1994. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 20-06- 2005. Hence, this writ appeal.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
This is not a case where the Labour Court agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and has exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act. On charge No.1, the Labour Court took the view that there was hardly any evidence to prove that the respondent has caused the accident. It was clearly mentioned that the doctor who conducted post-mortem of the deceased was not examined and there was hardly any link to connect the injuries suffered by the deceased to any accident involving the bus. On the second charge, the Labour Court observed that when the respondent did not cause any accident at all, the question of failing to report it to the police or the authorities of the depot does not arise. The whole argument before the learned single Judge proceeded as though the Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act. Before us also, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any serious defect or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 21-08-2014 ks