APHC010576762005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26944 OF 2005 Between: K.R.K. Rao, E-351286, Driver, APSRTC, Gudivada Depot, aged 42 years, R/o.Gudivada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Guntur. 2. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Gudivada, Krishna District. ...Respondents 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.74/2001, Dt.11-3- 2003, which was published in the Gazette vide GORT.No.1094, Dt. 11-6-2003 in dismissing the I.D., by confirming the punishment or reduction of basic pay of the petitioner for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect by the DM Vide Proc.No.02/2(7)/98-Gudivada, Dt. 14-7-1999 as illegal, unjust, against to the principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V RAGHU r Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC The Court made the following order: . APHC010576762005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26944/2005 Between: 1.K.R.K.RAO, KRISHNA DISTRICT, E-351286, DRIVER, APSRTC, GUDIVADA DEPOT, R/O.GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUMLABOUR COURT GUNTUR, REP BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, GUNTUR. 2.THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Award of the labour Court in I.D.No.74/2001, Dt.11-3-2003, which was published in the, Gazette vide GORT.No.1094, Dt.11-6-2003 in dismissing the I.D., by confirming the punishment or reduction of basic pay of the petitioner for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect by the DM Vide Proc.No.02/2(7)/98-Gudivada, Dt.14-7-1999 as illegal, unjust, against to the principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside and pass such other order or orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2005fWPMP 34630 OF 2005 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 fix an early date of hearing of the writ petition and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR 2.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC 3.R MANMADHA REDDY The Court made the following order: Questioning the award of the 1 confirming the proceedings of respondent wherein a punishment of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect was imposed, the present writ petition is filed. St respondent dated 11.03.2003 Heard Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarulu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit would contend that, on the allegation that the petitioner, who is driver, has caused an accident, the 2'^^ respondent-Depot Manager has imposed a punishment of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner by 2 incremental stages i.e., from Rs.3459/- to Rs.3305/- for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect. He further submitted that questioning the said punishment, the petitioner’s union had raised a dispute in the year 2000 and as the conciliation was failed, the said dispute was referred to the 1 St respondent under section 10-1(c) of the I.D.Act, 1947. Later, the said accident was tried by the Criminal Court and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 26.04.2001. He further submitted that, the 1®^ respondent has nd passed an award dated 11.03.2003 confirming the punishment of 2 respondent, which was published in Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.1094 dated A tl.06.2003. The 1®' respondent has dismissed the I.D. on the ground that the claim statement was not filed. As the notices were not served to the petitioner, he could not appear before the 1®* respondent which is neither wilful nor wonton. Therefore, dismissing the I.D. is against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. He further relied on the judgment in W.P.No.3545 of 2007 dated 01.11.2018, wherein this Court has modified the punishment imposed by the authorities by reducing the pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect and made clear that the modified punishment is without monetary benefits. In view of the above circumstances, prayed to allow the writ petition. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel while justifying the orders 4. of the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot ask for any relief as the authorities have dealt the case in the right perspective. He further submitted that the petitioner would definitely get increments and no observations were required to that effect. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned 5. counsel. 6. A perusal of the record would reveal that in view of the accident caused by the petitioner, the Depot Manager has imposed a punishment of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages i.e., from Rs.3459/- to Rs.3305/- for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect. The said punishment was confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under its award dated 11.03.2003 which was published in Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.1094 dated 11.06.2003. The submission of the petitioner is that though he was acquitted in the criminal case filed against him for causing accident, the 1®‘ respondent have not considered the said acquittal order before passing the impugned award. However, the punishment imposed on the petitioner of reduction of basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect seems a little bit harsh and disproportionate to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the same needs modification and the ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect, however by considering the contention of the learned Standing counsel that the petitioner would get increments. 7. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed by modifying the punishment imposed by the 1®' respondent. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur vide impugned orders to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for one year without cumulative effect, without any monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPU //TRUE COPY// EGiSTRAR tTION OFFICER To, 1. The Presiding Officer, The industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Guntur 2. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3. One CC to SRI V RAGHU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 31/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 26944 OF 2005 50F l,| 17 SEP 2025 5 Current Section . DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS