. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY. THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N . WRIT PETITION NO: 17498 OF 2012 TA 1 ; Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Razole. East Godavari District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum, -Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2. The Depot Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Razole, East Godavari District Representing Sri Ch.K. Murthy, Driver, E-495042.. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the form of Writ of Certiorari (a) call for the records pertaining to and related to award passed by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in 1.D. No. 69 of 2007 dated 14.12.2009 and quash or set aside the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegaj and contrary to the law as the corporation has conducted the enquiry duly following the procedure prescribed in the corporation regulations; and (b) consequently declare that the 2nd respondent is not entitled for any relief except the modification passed by the appellate authority since the 2nd respondent committed misconduct. / I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 22425 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the award passed by 4t^tHpn’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D. No. 6 of 2007 dated jb09. el fqr the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: — The Court made the following: ORDER ^ M A -■ u-m \ \ V, APHC010475982012 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITI<^»^ 17498/2012 IN THE [3457] St.f0 THE ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Between; The Depot Manager, Apsrtc AND The Honible Industrial Tribunalcum and Others ‘^'’^VINOD KUMAr“ DA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S). 1.GP FOR LABOUR Court made the following Order; The petitioner is challenging Court, Visakhapatnam, in l.D.No The the award passed by the Labour .69 of 2007, dated 14.12.2009. while working as a driver, caused an The 2"^^ respondent 14 09.2004 while driving 2. the bus from Amalapuram to conducted and the disciplinary dated 08.08.2005. The 2 accident on An enquiry was Sakinetipalli. authority passed an nd order of termination appellate authority modified the punishment by imposing a deferment of the annual increment for a period of fwo years wifh cumulative effect. The 2- respondent filed ,69 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and the respondent filed an appeal and the l.D.No HN, J W.P.No.17498 2012 y 2 Labour Court, considering the issue in totality, modified the punishment by postponing one annual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that the 2"*^ respondent caused a major accident, which could have been prevented if the 2"^^ respondent had exhibited more alertness while driving. It is submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the 2"^' respondent was found guilty of misconduct. 3. 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court, it is evident that the Labour Court has considered the issue and passed a well-reasoned award after going through the material evidence on record. The Labour Court has given a specific finding that the 2"'^ respondent was not guilty of misconduct that would have warranted the imposition of a severe punishment of deferment of annual increment with cumulative effect. The Labour Court found that the punishment imposed was disproportionate and as such. modified the same. Considering the details in the manner in which the Labour 5. Court passed the award and also considering that no grounds have HN, J W.P.No.l7498_2012 3 been made out by the petitioner to dislodge the well-considered award, this Court is not inclined to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no 6. order as to costs. miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall SD/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CT@LO As a sequel, pending stand closed. //TRUE COPY// FFICER SE To. /' 1 One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies TF r HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.17498 of 2012 I* 0 5 MAK 2125 , Curreni beciion oV DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS