APHC010490612005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21885 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-14 [3506] The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, W.G.District ...Petitioner Vs. Depot Secretary APSRTC National Mazdoor Union and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR CORAM :SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 5th March 2026 ORDER: By present writ petition, order dated 31.03.2005 passed in I.D. No.23 of 2001 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur, has been assailed. 2. (a) 1st respondent sought for reference under Section 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act to espouse the cause of one of its members, namely Mr.V.Appa Rao, who was working as driver with the appellant Corporation. The workman stated to have indulged in an accident occurred on 17.10.1992, which resulted in the cyclist, who was dashed, got injured and later succumbed. 2 CGR, J W.P. No.21885 of 2005 (b) Domestic enquiry came to be conducted and eventually, an order of punishment came to be passed, by which reduction of pay by three increments for three years with cumulative effect was ordered, besides treating the period of suspension to be not on duty. The said punishment order came to be modified vide order dated 01.01.1994, by which the punishment has been reduced to reduction of two increments for two years with cumulative effect, besides suspension being treated to be not on duty. (c) In pursuance to aforesaid incident and request for reference, the Government eventually referred the issue to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, workman did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. The appellant Corporation, as respondent, got marked Exs.M1 to M18. The punishment has been set aside and considering that the workman has retired from service since May, 2004, the four increments were directed to be restored with effect from the date of reference i.e., 05.12.2000 and arrears of pay from 01.12.2000 to May, 2004 were directed to be paid within two months. (d) Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 3 CGR, J W.P. No.21885 of 2005 (e) This Court by interim order dated 16.10.2005, stayed the operation of impugned award. 3. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner. None appears for 1st respondent despite service of notice. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that the order of Tribunal has not recorded any specific reasons why the evidence adduced by appellant Corporation has been discarded. The Tribunal, merely on surmises and conjectures, has come to conclusion that, in normal circumstances, the accidents occur invariably not only due to the negligence of driver, even otherwise also. Therefore, even the cyclist would also have been at fault in contributing to the accident. It is further contended that aforesaid conclusion and findings are neither pleaded by the workman nor emanate from any of the evidence. Therefore, the same is clearly perverse. 5. Perused the record. 6. The impugned award is very brief. The Tribunal has not referred to any of the documentary evidence adduced by the appellant Corporation, in particular, Exs.M1 to M18. On the other 4 CGR, J W.P. No.21885 of 2005 hand, it merely goes by a general analogy in coming to conclusion that even cyclist could also have been at fault or contributed to the accident. The said finding is neither supported by any oral or documentary evidence. It is for the workman to establish aforesaid fact by adducing cogent evidence. The conclusion arrived at by Tribunal is clearly based on no evidence, therefore, the order suffers from perversity. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal interfering with the punishment imposed, is clearly unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss