LAKSHMINARAYANA M Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed questioning the award of the Labour Court dated 19-6-1996 in I.D.No. 421 of 1992 insofar as it denied backwages and other benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the 2nd.respondent-Corporation on 6-5-1968. On 5-11-1987 while he was operating the bus on the route Kamareddy to Badrachalam, an accident took place at Modugula Gudem (Illendu) in which an old man died. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for causing the accident by negligent driving of the bus and by order dated 28-7-1988 he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority which also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, for brevity) in I.D.No. 37 of 1991. The Labour Court, after considering the matter held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the misconduct and set aside the order of removal and directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate without any other benefits like backwages etc. Insofar as the award denying the backwages and other benefits to the petitioner is concerned, the present writ petition has been filed by the workman.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court having found that the petitioner was not negligent in driving the bus and on account of certain unforeseen circumstances the accident took place and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner, was disproportionate to the misconduct and directed the respondent- Corporation to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh candidate. It is his further case that the Labour Court having found that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct ought to have granted full backwages and other attendant benefits to the petitioner since the petitioner cannot be found fault with for causing the accident.