SK AHMED Vs. LABOUR COURT GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the Award dated 8/03/1995 in I.D. No. 21 of 1990 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur insofar as it is against the petitioner in denying the continuity of service and back wages.

(2.) Before adverting to the question relating to the legality and validity of the Award, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts: The petitioner herein is a driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He was kept under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 25/03/1989 alleging that on 9/03/1989 when the petitioner was driving the bus on the route Guntur to Repalle, met with fatal accident at the outskirts of Ponnur due to his rash and negligent driving and due to lack of. anticipation. Then second respondent accordingly had issued a charge-sheet dated 28/03/1989 with the following charges:

(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet on 1/04/1989 denying the charges levelled against him and explaining the circumstances under which the accident had occurred. The second respondent, however, ordered an enquiry by the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Guntur Division. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 26/06/1989 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The second respondent accepted the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly a show- cause notice dated 17/07/1989 was served upon the petitioner requiring the explanation of the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from the service of the Corporation. The petitioner submitted his explanation and reply on 28/07/1989. The second respondent having considered the explanation, passed orders removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation by an order dated 4/08/1989. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager was rejected on 26/12/1989. The petitioner, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') by filing a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act challenging the order of removal.