IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6223 OF 2021 Between: 1. The Depot Manager, Ravulapalem Depot-533 238, East Godavari District. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Rajamahendravaram-533 101, East Godavari District. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Rajamahendravaram-533 101, East Godavari District. 2. 3. ...Petitioners AND 4. DEPOT SECRETARY, the APSRTC United Workers Union, Reg.No.G- 2778, FITU, Rajamahendravaram -533 101, Representing M.M.Ganapathi, E.601122, Driver. The Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 5. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to and related to award passed in I D. No.3 of 2018 dated 27.11.2019 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 27.11.2019 in I.D.No. 03 of 2018 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA, (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A G SATYANARAYANA RAO The Court made the following order: APHC010108132021 ;-.y IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE « PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6223/2021 Between; ...PETITIONER(S) The Depot Manager and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Depot Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petltioner{S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 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 particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari cali for the records pertaining to and reiated to award passed in i.D.No.3 of 2018, dated 27.11.2019 on the fiie of the industriai Tribunai-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and deciaring the same as arbitrary, iiiegai and contrary to the iaw and consequentiaiiy quash the same....” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, one M.M.Ganapathi, E.601122, Driver (1®' respondent herein) of Ravulapalem Depot, while driving with vehicle NO.AP28Z3571 on the route from Rajahmundry to Ravulapalem via Bobbarlanka on 01.04.2013, caused a fatal accident. The vehicle collided head-on with a tractor coming from the opposite direction, damaging the right side of the bus behind the driver’s seat. The accident resulted in the death of one passenger, grievous injuries to three other passengers, as well as injuries to the first responcjent and the service conductor. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of the Ravulapalem depot, where a prima facie case was established against the driver. The 1®‘ petitioner placed the 1®‘ respondent under suspension and issued a charge sheet on 07.05.2013 under Regulation No.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. Thereafter, the 1®' respondent submitted his explanation to the said charge memo. On perusal of the explanation submitted by the 1®' respondent, the disciplinary authority felt the need to conduct detailed enquiry into the charge and as such the enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted detailec;! enquiry, providing the 1®* respondent all reasonable opportunities at every stage. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the management and the 1®* petitioner issued a final order dated 22.03.2019 deferring the Annual Increment of the 1®' respondent for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The appeal and review petitions of the 1®' respondent 3 rejected by the appellate and review authorities respectively, on merits. Questioning the proceedings of punishment order dated 22.03.2014 issued by the petitioner, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute, vide I.D.No.3 of 2018 before the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”). The Labour Court allowed the I.D. vide order dated 27.09.2019 setting aside the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been were filed. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2021, so far the respondents have not filed any counter till date. 3. Heard Mr.Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, for the petitioners and Mr.A'G.Satyanaraya Rab, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared virtually through video conferencing. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the 1®' respondent did not anticipate the movement of the opposite coming vehicle and drove the bus in the middle of the road, without providing space to the other vehicles, which caused the main accident. He further submits that the 1®‘ respondent failed to take precautionary measures, which lead to the accident, and loss of a human 5. 4 life and grievous injuries to three passengers and injuries to the 1®' respondent and service conductor besides heavy damages to the bus. He further submits that the Labour Court without appreciating the contentions of the Corporation erroneously passed Award in I.D.No.3 of 2018, dated 27.11.2019 setting aside the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.03.2014 and held that the 1®‘ respondent is entitled for restoration of One incremental stage in his pay. He further submits that the Labour Court failed to recognize that the punishment imposed on the 1®* respondent on 22.03.2014 was upheld for nearly five years and raised the present Industrial Dispute Case. As such, the case itself is not maintainable. The Labour Court failed to see that the misconduct of the respondent is contrary to the Regulation of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and the 1®' respondent is not entitled for any relief. He further submits that the Labour Court erred in interfering with the well reasoned order of the review authority on assumptions, which is contrary to the established principles of law. He further submits that the Labour Court failed to see that Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in case 6f dismissal or discharge of workmen as clearly mentioned in the Section itself, since Section 11-A is not applicable. Hence, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Corporation. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5 Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the 1®* respondent started from Rajahmundry to go to Ravulapalem and at Peravaram village, a Tractor (No.AP37BM7395), coming from the opposite direction with a single light, collided with the bus. At that time, the tractor driver » was in a drunken condition and was driving the vehicle in a rash negligent The explanation of the respondent was ignored and ordered for regular domestic enquiry and imposed the punishment of deferment of Annual Increment of the 1®* respondent for a period of one year with cumulative effect. He further submits that the petitioner did his best to control the bus, but since the driver of the tractor was in drunken condition, the accident occurred. He further submits that the police also investigated and registered a crime against the driver of the tractor and filed charge sheet considering that there is no fault the respondent’s side. He further submits that the domestic Enquiry Officer recorded its finding with his own assumptions and presumptions relying on the evidence of Superintendent without application of mind and the alleged domestic enquiry report in the absence of any substantive material and even the preliminary enquiry officer failed to record the statements of injured passengers to came to his own conclusion before fixing the liability and also failed to consider the police report and the findings of the domestic enquiry officer. He further submits that the Labour Court has rightly set aside the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with 6. manner. on I 6 cumulative effect to the 1®* respondent. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that. the Labour Court has set aside the proceedings of the Depot Manager APSRTC, Ravulapalem dated 22.03.2014 with the following observations: “The learned Law Officer vehemently submitted that, there is a past kimilar history against the petitioner herein and the petitioner caused huge damage to the bus under consideration. It is no doubt that past history is a material for consideration provided it should be placed before the petitioner at the time of enquiry by giving an opportunity to him to meet the circumstances and in the absence of any material to that extent past history is no way concerned and law is settled to that extent and there is no material to that extent before this Court to uphold the argument of the learned Law Officer to that extent. It is settled law that this Court has no power to interfere into the punishments unless some substantive material is placed before this Court and it is reinforced in the case of V.Ramana Vs. APSRTC & Ors. 2005 LLR 1089, wherein it is heid that the court should not interfere with the administrative decision of the empioyer unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or ivas shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it ivas in defiance of iogic or moral standards. In the light of the above considerations and the settled principles of law It is the considered opinion of this Court that the police registered a case against the driver of the tractor, who is facing the criminal trial and the learned domestic enquiry officer came to his own conclusions against the petitioner’s herein in respect of alleged charges of lack of anticipation and anticipation does not play any role in this case in view of the rash and negligent act whibh is fixed on the driver of the tractor and the enquiry officer came to an erroneous conclusion by keeping the damage to the bus bearing No. AP 28Z 3571 in mind and inclined towards the management, while recording the finding against the petitioner herein ignoring the valuable evidence supporting the theory of the petitioner herein and the punishment imposed by the respondent management is non application of mind and it is shockingly disproportionate and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this point is answered. ” T 7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing 9. the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, there are no 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. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No posts. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGI^AR //TRUE COPY// SECttON OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, (SC FOR APSRTC) [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A G Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies RAM I HIGH COURT DATED:07/02/2025 X 10 MAR 2025 ? O^ Current Seciion to. ORDER WP.No.6223 of 2021 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS