The Depot Manager Vs P. Gurunatha Reddy @ P. Gurunadha Reddy

¶1

kNO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAW<
(Special Original Jurisdiction) %
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL ^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
IH *

¶2

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO: 14666 OF 2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

Corporation,The Depot ChittoorManager,-I Depot,AndhraGhittoorPradeshDistrict. State Road Transoort^

¶6

The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶7

The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

¶8

Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Petitioners

¶9

AND

¶10

Oc? Driver'^ ^4 Years,

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the award made in I.D. No. 28 of 2014, dated 18.06.2015 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court Anantapuramu held that workman IS entitled to reinstate into service with continuity of service and with all attended benefits are concerned as illegal arbitrary and quash the same.

y V

;
4
$:
1,
*
ir

"lA^lfe: 1 OF 201«

; > petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances sSd-in the affidavit filed i m support of the petition, the High Court may be suspend the operation of the award dated 18.06.2015 made in I.D. No. 28 of 2014 on the file of Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Ananthapuramu pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA The Court made the following order:

¶19

1

¶20

APHC010319292018

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

[3396]

¶23

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 14666/2018

¶27

Between;

¶28

The Depot Manager and Others

¶29

...PETITIONER(S)

¶30

AND

¶31

P Gurunatha Reddy P Gurunadha Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner(S);

¶33

1 .ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶35

1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP)

¶36

2.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶37

The Court made the following;

¶38

ORDER;

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution^ofIndiawith

¶40

the following prayer:

¶41

“ to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more^particularly one^inthe nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating^{totheawardmadeinI.D.} No.28 of 2014, dated 18.06.2015 on the file of the^{IndustrialTribunal-Cum} - Labour Court, Anantapuramu as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same and pass such other order or orders ”

¶42

2

¶43

Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the 2'^^ respondent.

¶44

Notice which was sent to the respondent is returned^unserved.

¶45

Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the 1 St respondent worked as Driver in APSRTC. While he was discharging the duty on 23.08.2012, due to his negligence, accident occurred, resulting which, the passengers received bleeding injuries. After domestic enquiry, he was removed from service on 15.03.2013. The 1®‘ respondent preferred appeal and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 18.01.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred I.D.No.28 of 2014,^{whereinanawardwas} passed in his favour modified the punishment to that^{ofreductionofhisbasic} pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year^{whichshallhaveeffect} on his future increments besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for the purpose of wages. Aggrieved thereby, the RTC authorities preferred the present petition. Learned Standing Counsel would^{submitthatacrimehas} been registered against the 1®^ respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and the criminal case was ended in acquittal, which does not mean that the 1®^ respondent has not done any misconduct. In domestic enquiry, his guilt is proved. Learned Standing Counsel finally submits that the interference of the Industrial Tribunal in the domestic enquiry is unwarranted. Learned Standing Counsel prays to allow the petition.

¶46

m- f

¶47

3

¶48

Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly observed by the Presiding^{OfficeroftheIndustrial} Tribunal that the respondent faced a criminal trial^{inacriminalcase,which}

¶49

was ended in acquittal, in the light of the fact that there^{isnoincriminating} material found against him in the case. That apart,^{somewitnesseswere}

¶50

examined in the domestic enquiry. They also did not say anything against the

¶51

1^' respondent. In the absence of any material to establish^therashand negligent driving of the workman/respondent, the Industrial^{Tribunalrightly} intervened and set aside the punishment.

¶52