Dismissed

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, v. Sri S.a.Nayeem

Telangana HC19 Nov 2021WA/383/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the corporation's writ appeal against a Labour Court award reinstating a driver after finding him not at fault in an accident. The Court held the Single Judge correctly rejected interference as the findings were evidentially supported and legally valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs.

The Telangana State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR TI t'n" oF TELANGAN.

¶2

FRrDAy, rrr" n, i,|l|.11,.f x,n;* xi i$H

¶3

Y D E R A B A D

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

IHE HONOURABLE IHE CH'EF J.USTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA rHE HoNouRABLE sRrrr3l8. A. RAJASHEKER REDD'

¶6

WRIT AP E LN 3 3 F 2019

¶7

Writ Appear under crause 15 0f the Letters patent fired against the order dated 16-11-2018 passed in W.p.No.7400 ot 20O2on the fileof the High Court. Between:

¶8

T[e- T-elan-gana State Road. Transport corporation, (prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC) Rep. by its Depot rr/lanigel N,iG-h;5ij6Ji'b"pot, Hyderabad.

¶9

AND

¶10

...AppellanUWrit Petitioner

¶11

Sri S.A.Na yeem, S/o. S.A.Qayyum, H. No.9-8-15, Chota Bazar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

¶12

.,,RespondenURespondent

¶13

IA O: 2OF 19

¶14

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in l.D.No.79/1999 dated 27.10.2001 on the file of the presiding Officer, Labour Court-|, Hyderabad as confirmed by the learned single Judge in W.p. No. 7400 of 2002, dated 16.11.2018.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. N. VASUDEVA REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HON'RLE^{THECHIEF JUSTICESATISH CIIANDRA} SHARMA AND

¶19

THIi HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER} DY

¶20

Writ Appeal No.383^{of 2O19}

¶21

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharrna)

¶22

The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.740O of 2002.

¶23

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/employee, who was serving as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (now Telangana State Road Transport Corporation), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on account of an accident which took place on 25. l2.tgg7. The matter r.r,as probed into by the Chief Inspector, Musheerabad Depot, and he filed a preliminary report holding that the Driver as well as the cyclist were equally responsible for the accident. A domestic enquiry took place in the matter and thereafter, an order of removal was passed on 10.08.1998. The employee in question approached the Labour Court under Section 2_A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1942, and the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the I employee with all consequentia-l benefits. Challenging

¶24

the same, the wrjr petition was preferred axd the same was also dismissed.

¶25

The Award of the Labour Court is on recorcl and the same reveals that there is a categorical finding arrived at by the Labour court that the employee was not at fault in the matter. There is a finding arrived at by the Labour Court based on appreciation of evidence that there was a fault on the part of the cyclist and the Labour court has gone to the extent stating that the charges are not proved based upon the evidence.

¶26

Keeping in view the evidence on record and the findings arrived at by the Labour Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Singie Judge u,as justified in dismissing the writ petition. The Award u,as passed by the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence and no illegality or irregularity has been pointecl out in respect of the Award passed by the Labour Court. The procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act was followed by the Labour Court and as the findings in the domestic enquiry were perverse ald the employer was not able to prove the charges before the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter. This Court does not find any reason to

¶27

¶28

interfere^{with the order passed by the learned single} Judge.

¶29

The writ appeal^{is accordingly dismissed' The} miscellaneous^{applications pending in this writ appeal, if} any, sha1l stand closed.^{There shall be no order as to} costs.

¶30

s D,-c^H bVEEJ|jYITF:B"I+HkH //TRUE^COPY// \-l_.,-

¶31

SECTION^OFFICER

¶32

'o'1.^{on" CCto Sri N' Vasudeva Reddy' SC FoRTsRTc[oPUC]} 2. Two^CDCopies 3. One^{SPare coPY} CHR JM .. ,*y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911112021

JUDGMENT

W.A.No.383 of 2019

E TA iai
1
q
J
C)o 0 E DEC 20?1

¶38

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, v. Sri S.a.Nayeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, v. Sri S.a.Nayeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, Vs D Upender Reddy

Bhagavathula Vamsi Krishnamacharyulu Vs State of Telangana

M/s.Safeway Infra, And 2 Others Vs Sri.MohanBeela, And 51 Others

The Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer Maripeda Mandal Vs B. Bicha

The Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer Vs G. Hanuma Goud

The Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer Vs R. Bhujang