A P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY APSRTC NATIONAL MAZDOOR UNION MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT NAGAR KURNOOL DEPOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order under appeal the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the management - A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the management") which was directed against the Award dated 8.9.1999 made in I.D. No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of the petition can briefly be summarised as follows: The concerned workman while serving as driver in the establishment of the APSRTC, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him in terms of APSRTC Conduct and CCA Regulations (for short "the Regulations") on the alleged ground that on account of negligence on his part, he caused accident resulting in grievous injury to a minor girl. The Enquiry Authority after holding the enquiry found the workman guilty of the charge. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Enquiring Authority, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 9.8.1990 removing the workman from service as a disciplinary measure. In the appeal preferred by the workman under the regulations, the appellate authority reduced the penalty and directed reinstatement of the workman into service while imposing lesser penalty of denial of one increment with cumulative effect and further directed that the period of suspension should be treated as not on duty. Accordingly, the workman was reinstated into service. It seems from the record that in the meanwhile the workman was also prosecuted in the criminal law Court and was ultimately acquitted from the charge by the criminal law Court. After this event, the workman filed a review petition on 15.3.1993 before the reviewing authority under the Regulations. Since the reviewing authority did not dispose of the review within a reasonable time, the workman filed W.P. No. 16939 of 1994 in this Court and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the reviewing authority to hear and dispose of the review petition within a time-frame and, accordingly, the reviewing authority passed order on 2.3.1995 rejecting the review petition and confirming the order made by the appellate authority. Thereafterwards, the workman instituted l.D.No. 19 of 1998 in the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad challenging the action of the management of the APSRTC in denying one increment with cumulative effect and the wages during the suspension period. Before the Tribunal either parties let in no oral evidence. The workman marked Ex.Wl and the management marked Exs.MWI to MW-24. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record found that the workman was not guilty of negligence and, therefore, it did not find justification on the part of the management in denying one increment with cumulative effect and also the wages during the suspension period as a disciplinary measure. This resulted in the Tribunal passing the impugned award directing the management of the APSRTC to pay wages to the workman during the suspension period and setting aside the punishment of denial of one increment with cumulative effect.

(3.) When the said award was challenged before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal is perverse and there was delay in instituting the I.D. The learned single Judge from the records found that the two independent witnesses, passengers in the bus, have testified that the girl, who was injured, came suddenly when the bus was moving at a slow pace and dashed against the running bus and the workman was not at all responsible for the accident and those witnesses were not cross- examined by the management of APSRTC. The evidence of the independent witnesses clearly goes to show that the workman was not negligent in driving the vehicle and the minor girl suffered injury on account of her own negligence. Therefore, it could not be said that the finding recorded by the Tribunal and accepted by the learned single Judge is perverse in the sense, it is not based on any evidence.