APHC010065512013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27681/2013 Between: 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC ELURU DEPOT, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. K R KRISHNA E 353184 DRIVER, APSRTC, ELURU DEPOT ...RESPONDENT 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 for this reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari (a) call for the records relating to and related to Award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I. D. No. 124/2006 Dated.13.08.2010 published on 22.10.2010 in G.O. Rt. No.1124 Dated 06.10.2010 and quash or set aside the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal 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 respondent is not entitled for any relief since the respondent committed misconduct and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 34340 OF 2013 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 stay the operation of the Award passed by the Honourable Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.124/2006 dated 13-8-2010 and pass such other or further orders as this Honorable"-court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Petitioner is challenging the award passed in I.D.No.124 of 2006 dated 13.08.2010, whereby the Labour Court, Guntur, had modified the punishment imposed on the respondent. 2. The disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one and a half year, on account of the respondent causing a fatal accident on 09.01.2003. An enquiry was conducted and the respondent was found to be responsible for causing the accident resulting in death of a motorcyclist. The disciplinary authority, after conducting a detailed inquiry, has imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one and a half year shall have effect of postponing the future increments and treating the suspension, as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments. The respondent filed I.D.No.124 of 2006 and the Labour Court has held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is not justified and modified the same as deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year, which shall have effect of postponing future increments and treating the suspension, as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments. The petitioner claims that the said Award has modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 4. Perused the record. 4 5. The Labour Court has considered the issue in totality and found that the respondent cannot be solely held responsible for cause of the accident and the motorcyclist who was Riding the motorcycle had fell down on the road on account of skidding. The contributed negligence and the unexpected incident resulting in the fatal accident has resulted in the punishment and a challenge before the Labour Court. 6. Considering the incident in totality and also taking into consideration the evidence furnished by the before the Court, the Labour Court has found it appropriate to modify the punishment. No grounds are made out which would warrant consideration for interfering with the well-considered award passed by the Labour Court. 7. On these considerations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 01.04.2026 SR