I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Q WRIT PETITION NO: 21813 OF 2012 Between: 1. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Jaggaiahpet Depot, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Labour Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. A. Murali, Aged about 55 years, Ex-Driver, E-303830, APSRTC, Jaggaiahpet Depot, R/o. C/o. Amrutham Venkateswarlu, 266, Labour Colony, Vidhyadharapuram, Vijayawada -12, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thie 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 Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 8 of 2007 dated 24.06.2011 and quash or set aside the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the corporation has followed the prescribed procedure as per the regulations; and (b) consequently declare that the 2 respondent is not entitled for any back wages and continuity of service as the 2"^ respondent has committed misconduct. 1^. NCtea>OF^12(WVMP. NO: 4084 OF 20121 nd Between: f *- A. Murali. Aged about 55 years, Ex-Driver, E-303830, APSRTC, Jaggaiahpet Depot,"R/o. C/o. Amrutham Venkateswarlu, 266, Labour Colony, 'Vidhyadharapuram, Vijayawada -12, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 in WP No.21813of 2012 AND 1. The Labour Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.2 in WP No.21813of2012 2. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Jaggaiahpet Depot, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 3. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS in WP No.21813of 2012 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 vacate the Interim Suspension order, dated 20-07-2012 passed in WPMP No. 27938 of 2012 in WP No.21813 of 2012. I.A. NO: 5 OF 2012fWPMP. NO: 27938 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 8 of 2007 dated 24.6.2011. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1; GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.S.K. RAMA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010609922012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21813/2012 [3457] Between: Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Krishna District & Anr and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Presiding Officer Labour Court Guntur Dist Anr and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR 2.V S K RAMA RAO 3.P VENKATESWAR RAO The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: challenging the award passed in l.D.No.08 of respondent was directed to be The petitioners are 2007 dated 24.06.2011 whereby the 2 nd reinstated into service together will 50% of back wages and continuity of attendant benefits. This Court while admitting the Writ of the award except the issue of service with all Petition granted stay of operation reinstatement. learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for 2. Heard the 2""^ respondent. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 18.02.2005 which resulted in conducted after issuance of the officer found the 2"'^ respondent as guilty of respondent was imposed with punishment of nd respondent caused a fatal accident on death of motor cyclist. An enquiry was charge sheet and enquiry the charges. The 2 removal from services vide proceedings dated 10.05.2005. The 2 nd nd allowed by the labour respondent filed I.D.No.08 of 2007 which was reinstatement of the 2"“ respondent together with Court directing the and continuity of services with attendant benefits. The 2'^^' respondent was reinstated into services in pursuance of the directions of the labour Court. 50% of back wages 3 nd nd respondent submits that the 2 respondent is entitled for 100% of back wages and placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C.W.P.No.2629 of Learned counsel for the 2 4. 2013. As seen from the award, the labour Court has passed a detailed 5. nd and well reasoned award and gave categorical finding that the 2 respondent was not solely responsible for the cause of the accident and that the disciplinary authority has removed the 2^^^ respondent on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The evidence on record was also considered by the labour Court and gave a finding that the motor cyclist was driving the bike while talking over phone and it was he who had taken a sudden right turn which resulted in the accident. The motor cyclist hit the bus on its left side. Thus negligence or rashness on part of the 2"^ respondent was evidently not found. On these grounds, the 2 respondent was directed to be reinstated, as the labour Court found that the 2^^ respondent could not have been imposed the punishment which is not proportionate. The ratio of proportionality was well considered by the labour Court and as such rightly granted the relief to the 2 nd nd respondent. Considering these facts and after considering the well considered 6. award of the labour Court, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned award. 4 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioners to release withheld service benefits which was extended by the labour Court in l.D.No.8 of 2007 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- G SRINIVAS REDDY egistrar N OFFICER 7. DEPU //TRUE COPY// SE To, - Murthy, (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 1. One CC to Sri K Satyanarayan 2. Two CCS to GP for Labour, 3. One CC to Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P. Venkateswar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three C.D. Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.21813of2012 t 0 5 MAK 2125 ^ ■ Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS