APHC010649582014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21090/2014 Between: 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, GAJUWAKA DEPOT, VISHAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P SANKARA RAO E452657, DRIVER, APSRTC REPRESENTED BY A.P.S.R.T.C., NATIONAL MAZDOOR UNION, GAJUWAKA DEPOT, VISHAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUMLABOUR COURT, VISHAKHAPATNAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and calling for the records relating the I.D.No.65 OF 2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the award dated 03-08-2013, which was published in G.O. Rt. No. 1124 dated 5-122013 in the interest of justice. And pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 26435 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders to suspend the operation of the award passed by the 2nd 2 respondent in I.D.No.65/2011 dated 03-08-2013, pending disposal of this writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 2. S M SUBHAN The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed in I.D. No. 65 of 2011. The 1st respondent was placed under suspension for having caused an accident on 25.08.2001. 2. The 1st respondent was imposed a penalty of reduction of two incremental stages for a period of two (02) years with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty and also to recover an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards damages. The 1st respondent filed an I.D. before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court found that the 1st respondent was not negligent for causing the accident and, as such, set aside the punishment imposed by the management. Further, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to release the back wages as the punishment imposed was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent caused an accident resulting in damage to the bus and that the 1st respondent ought to have been more cautious while on duty. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority found the workman responsible for causing the accident and, as such, imposed the punishment, which was challenged by the 1st respondent before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority further modified the punishment to withholding of annual increment for a period of one (01) year with cumulative effect. The 1st respondent filed an I.D. challenging the said punishment, which was set aside. 4 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. There is no representation for the respondents. 5. As seen from the record, it is evident that the Labour Court has passed a well-considered and well-reasoned award by holding that the 1st respondent is not responsible for causing the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the workman in causing the accident. The Labour Court also observed that the 1st respondent had suffered an injury of fracture to his right hand and none of the documents filed before the Court could assist the Court in assessing the case of the workman to determine that the workman was negligent and caused the accident. 6. Considering the well-reasoned and well-considered award, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with and unsettle the findings of the Tribunal. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 07.04.2026 PNS