IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI -- (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO . WRIT PETITION NO: 6030 OF 2021 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC Parvathipuram Depot, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. V.Ch.Naidu, Driver, E-459428 APSRTC Parvathipuram Depot, Vizianagaram District. -2. The Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the a ivit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI call for the records pertaining and related to award passed in I.D.No. 56 of 2017 dated 28.08.2019 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law and consequentially quash the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 grant interim suspension of the award dated 28.08.2019 in I.D.No. 56 of 2017 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. '■/ 0 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.G.SATYANARAYANA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER ♦ APHC010105502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6030/2021 Between: t ...PETITIONER The Depot Manager, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) V Ch Naidu and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; " to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particulariy one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari cali for the records pertaining and related to award passed in i.D.No.56 of 2017 dated 28.08.2019 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law and consequentially quash the same....’’ 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, one V.Ch.Naidu, E-459428, Driver of Parvathipuram Depot being the 1®' respondent/petitioner in I.D.No.56 of 2017 on the file of Labour court, Visakhapatnam, while performing duty on the route Parvathipuram - Aviri with bus No.AP11Z-2142 at about 15:45 hours » 04.01.2013 at Sappagottili Village has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without taking precautionary measures and also failed to observe the movement of the other road users and pedestrians before starting the bus at Sappagottili stage. The Assistant Manager (Traffic), Parvathipuram Depot vide his report reported that the 1"* respondent/petitione r had failed to take precautionary measures and also failed to anticipate the other road on users and pedestrians which resulted in accident and the pedestrian in the accident was fallen down on the ground, which resulted that the pedestrian died on the spot with head injury. Basing on the above allegations, the charge was framed against the 1®‘ respondent/petitioner vide Red.No.28, IX (A)(B)(XXXII) of APSRTC Employee’s (conduct) Regulations, 1963. The 1®‘ respondent herein submitted his explanation to the said charge and the disciplinary authority felt that there is an imperative need to conduct detailed enquiry and as such, the enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer conducted detailed enquiry providing all reasonable opportunities to 1®* respondent at every stage and submitted enquiry report. Basing on the report, the petitioner issued show cause notice imposing penalty of punishment on 21.11.2013. After receiving explanation by the 1®‘ respondent, the petitioner issued final order dated 3 $ 18.11.2013 imposing punishment of reduction of basic pay by two incremental St stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the 1 respondent filed Appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Vizianagaram and the same was considered by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Vizianagaram and modified the punishment vide proceedings dated 21.06.2014 as reduction of basic pay by one incremental state for a period of St one year which shall have the effect on his future increments. Again, the 1 respondent filed Review Petition before the Regional Manager, APSRTC Vizianagaram and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 14.02.2017. Questioning the final orders dated 18.11.2013 and proceedings of Deputy Chief Traffic Manager dated 21.06.2014, the 1®* respondent raised Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No.56 of 2017 before the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Presiding Officer Labour Court, Visakhapatnam i.e., the 2"^ respondent. The 2"“^ respondent/Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019 has allowed the I.D. setting aside the proceedings of the petitioner herein dated 18.11.2013 and modified the proceedings dated 21.06.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard Mr.Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the petitioner 3. and Mr.A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared virtually through video conferencing. 4 On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.56 of 2017 is erroneous, contrary to law and facts of evidence. He further submits that the Labour Court I failed to recognize that Section 11-A of I.D. Act is only applicable in cases of dismissal or discharge of workmen, as clearly stated in the section itself. Since Section 11-A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Corporation. He further submits that the reasons given by Labour Court for interfering with the corporation’s administration are wholly irrelevant, based on misreading of the record. He further submits that the Labour Court failed to consider that, as admitted, the Management framed a charge against the 1®* respondent-driver basing on the domestic enquiry report and the driver was imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for I a period of two years with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the 1®‘ respondent was considered and the punishment was modified as reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The review preferred by the 1®' respondent was rejected by the Regional Manager, Vizianagaram, on merits vide proceedings dated 14.02.2017. This clearly indicates that the prima-facie case was made against the driver. He further submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the settle principles of law, as the punishment imposed by the disciplinary 4. 5 4 authority, after following the procedure cannot be interfered with or set aside. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent, while driving the bus on the road, through the route Parvathipuram to Arivi at Sapagotti Junction, heard a frightening noise from the rear side of the bus and on observation, it was noticed that a person had fallen under the bus and died at the rear wheels, without any fault of the workman. However, the workman’s explanation was ignored and regular enquiry was ordered and imposed punishment. He further submits that the Neelakantapuram Police registered a case against the 1®' respondent in Crime No.1 of 2013 and the same was ended in acquittal in C.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurupam. He further submits that the Joint Accident Committee recommended to the management that there was no fault on the part of the 1®‘ respondent regarding the accident. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider the fact that the accident occurred at the rear wheel of the bus. When the driver is seated, and the deceased t^imself intruded into the bus, the driver could not have taken effective steps to avert the accident. The Enquiry Officer, without considering the 1 erroneously reached to a conclusion and the management imposed the punishment ignoring the crucial evidence in favour of the 1^' respondent. He further submits that the Labour Court has rightly set aside the punishment of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year with 5. 1 respondent’s defense. 6 ^ • cumulative effect to the 1®' respondent. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record. On a iDerusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the Labour Court has set aside the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, dated 21.06.2014 with the following observations; 7. “As per established facts no act of rash and negligence was established against the petitioner herein and the lack of anticipation was also ruled out. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are found to be erroneous and are set aside by this Court as per answer for the Point No. 1 and discussed supra with clear reasons. /As per the ruling in V.Ramana Vs. APSRTC & Ors. 2005 LLR 1089, it is held that the court should not interfere with the administrative decision of the employer unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or n/as shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Though the learned Law Officer vehemently argued that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner herein and irrespective of the result in the criminaf case the enquiry proceedings played vital role, however, that argument canvassed by the learned Law Officer cannot be countenanced in the absence of established facts against the petitioner herein and there is no force in the argument of the learned Law Officer to that effect and the punishment imposed against the petitioner herein is shockingly disproportionate and liable to be set aside. Accordingly this point is answered. ” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, there grounds to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. on are no i" -Si 7 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall 10. stand closed. Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGIST R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies. gi ‘ % HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.6030 of 2021 ^ 1 1 MAR 2025 Current Section DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS