Dismissed

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., v. Mohd Yakub S/o Mohd. Abdul Rawoof

Telangana HC24 Dec 2013WP/6569/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, on a writ petition filed by APSRTC, refused to interfere with the Tribunal's order reinstating a driver removed after a fatal accident. The Court upheld the finding of no negligence and the 50% back wages award.

What did the court decide?

writ petition was dismissed; the Tribunal's order reinstating the driver and ordering payment of 50% back wages was allowed.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Vs Mohd Yakub… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

Writ Petition No.6569 of 2005

¶3

Date: 24-12-2013

¶4

Between The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kukatpally Bus Depot

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

1. Mohd. Yakub … Respondent/ Petitioner 2. The Presiding Officer, Addl. Industrial Tribunal cum Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad … Respondent

¶8

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶9

Writ Petition No.6569 of 2005

¶10

Order:

¶11

The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation, for short), Kukatpally filed this Writ of mandamus to set aside the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal cum

¶12

Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (the Tribunal, for short) in I.D.No.34 of 2003, dated 30-9-2004. It is more a Writ of certiorari rather than a Writ of mandamus.

¶13

2. The 1^st respondent is a driver working under the Corporation. On 02-02-2002, the bus driven by the 1^st respondent was involved in a fatal accident where a 4-year old baby died. A case was instituted against the 1^st respondent under Section 304-A, IPC. He was placed under suspension on 19-3-2002. After departmental enquiry, orders were passed removing him from service on 08-7-2002. The 1^st respondent was unsuccessful in the administrative appeal and review. Consequently, he raised I.D.No.34 of 2003.

¶14

3. The 2^nd respondent-Tribunal held that the charge was not proved. Holding that the 1^st respondent was not responsible for the accident and for the consequent death of the baby, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the 1^st respondent into service. The Tribunal also ordered payment of 50% of back wages deducted by the amount of subsistence allowance that the 1^st respondent would have received or had received. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is laid by the Corporation.

¶15

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation attacked the case both on question of fact as well as on

¶16

question of relief that the 1^st respondent was granted.

¶17

5. Regarding the negligent act of the 1^st respondent, it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that unless there was negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent, the accident would not have occurred, so much so, the 1^st respondent was liable for punishment.

¶18

6. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent referred to the judgment dated 23-7-1993 in C.C.No.7 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

When the 1^st respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC, after full-fledged trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class found the 1^st respondent not guilty of the offence alleged against him.

¶20

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that mere acquittal of the

¶21

1^st respondent before the Criminal Court does not automatically entail his reinstatement, back wages and other incidental reliefs. His contention is that there could not have been any accident but for the negligence of the 1^st respondent, whether the negligence was minor or major.

¶22

8. The 2^nd respondent-Tribunal referred to the claim of the Conductor of the bus, by name V.S.Rao and the Point in Charge at Borabanda Terminus, by name S.B.Singh. S.B.Singh was said to be an eyewitness for the occurrence. He deposed that there was no negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent in the occurrence of the accident. His case is that the accident occurred when there was a minor stampede when the bus reached Borabanda.

¶23

9. The Tribunal rightly relied upon the evidence of the Conductor and the Point in Charge before the Enquiry Officer and concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who is the 1^st respondent herein. In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated by the Conductor and the Point

¶24

in Charge before the Enquiry Officer, I am satisfied that the Tribunal correctly concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent in the occurrence of the accident. Added factor is the acquittal of the 1^st respondent by a competent Criminal Court. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal to reinstate the 1^st respondent into service does not deserve to be interfered with.

¶25

10. The direction of payment of 50% of back wages minus the amount the 1^st respondent might have received

¶26

during the period of suspension towards subsistence allowance is also disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, inter alia, contending that in view of the policy of ‘no work no pay’, the 1^st respondent shall not be entitled to back wages.

¶27

11. This is not a case of strike or similar incident where the 1^st respondent voluntarily abstained from duty and later claimed wages. It is the petitioner-Corporation, who placed the 1^st respondent initially under suspension and later removed him from service. Ordering reinstatement of 50% of back wages less the amount of subsistence allowance received or receivable by the 1^st respondent by the Tribunal is, in fact, a liberal order so far as the petitioner-Corporation is concerned.

¶28

I therefore consider that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified and does not deserve to be interfered with in any manner.

¶29

12. Consequently, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶30

_____________________ Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.

¶31

24^th December, 2013. Ak

¶32

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶33

Writ Petition No.6569 of 2005

¶34

24^th December, 2013. (Ak)

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., v. Mohd Yakub S/o Mohd. Abdul Rawoof

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., v. Mohd Yakub S/o Mohd. Abdul Rawoof

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Rakesh Kumar, No.930550097, Vs Union of India

D.Venkat Ram Reddy , Pratap Reddy (died) Vs The Dist. Collector, Mahabubangar Dist.

Chinna Geetha Devi Vs Mididoddi Shankaraiah

The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Vs Chairman-Cum- Presiding Officer

P.P.Venkataramana Vs Sri Purushotham Naik

P.P.Venkata Ramana Vs The Executive Director (Hyderabad, Zone)