The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award. The petitioner sought monetary benefits and notional increments after reinstatement following an accident, but the Court held the denial was justified due to contributory negligence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3301 ]
i i z iti i I i :t I ! I
HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TENTHDAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEPULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITI ONNO: 38884 OF 2013
Between:
N. Raia Ram,S/o. YellaiahAged about57 years, occ Driver, APSRTC, Armoor Depot,Rl/o 7-52, HasakotturVillage, kamarpally Revenue Mandal, Nizamabad District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article226 ot lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order ordirection more particularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamusand declare the order of the Labour court ll A.P. Hyderabadin lD No.3B/2010which was notified by the state Governmentin GO RT No.638 dated 30-05-2012to the extent of denyingthe petitionerfrom the monitory benefits includingnotional increments during the period i.e. from the dateof suspension anddate of reinstatementas illegal arbitrary and consequently setaside the orders.
!i,i :
l.A. NO:1O F 2015(WP P. NO: 13903 oF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto expedite the hearing of theabovewrit petition.
Counse! for the Petitioner: SRIK.ASHOK REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents:SRI E.GANESH' REP. FOR SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC
The Court made the following:ORDER
I i I i I
; i I I !i i l
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
IIIRIT PETITION No.38884 of2O13
ORDER:
This writ petition is fiIed seekingthe following prayer:
"...to issue a writ, orderor direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamusand declare the order of the Labour Court II A.P., Hyderabad inID.No.3S/2010 whichwas notifiedby the State Government in GC)RT No.638dated 30.05.2012to the extent of denying thepetitioner themonitory benefits includingnotional increments during theperiodi.e. from the date of suspension and date of reinstatement as illegalarbitraryand consequently set aside the orders andpass such otherordersas are necessary in the interests ofjusticc."
2
court-Il, Hyderabad (For short "the Labour court,). After conducting full-pledged trial, the Labour Court, vide its award dated 16'03.2012 ordered to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. Hence, the present writ petition.
4' It has been contended by the .learned counser for the petitioner that the Labour Court having held that there is no dispute regarding the factum of not putting the parking lights by the tipper owner/driver and no precautionar5r measures have been taken by him. But, the Labour Court erred in denying back wages on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of petitioner also. It is further contended that the entire evidence goes to show that accident took place mainly because the Tipper was parked on the middle of the road due to mechanical failure and the driver of the Tipper have not taken precautionan measures. Hence, the Labour Court failed to award back *,ages. It is further contended that denial of back wages and all other monetar,, benefits would cause loss to the petitioner financiallv_ Hence, he pravs to allow the writ petition.
3
I
on the part of the petitioneralso,the Tribunal has alreadytaken lenient view and modified thepunishmentof removal and ordered to reinstate the petitioner intoservice and rightlydenied the back wages. Hence, heprays to dismissthe writ petition.
"POINT : Working ofthe petitionerin APSRTCdriving of the bus bearing No.AP 1O Z 8438 on29 .LO.2OO4betweenNizamabad- Hanamkonda, involving of the said buson the said day inan accident in between Gupta andRamachandrapallyX Roads at 2l-20 hours, dying of one person in that accidentand sustaining of injuries to others are admitted facts. Onreceiptof the said information from the duty conductor, police registercd a cascin in crime No.l79 /2OO4 U/s.304-A lPC. When lhepetitioner was driving the bus at about 21-30 hours, he ought to have been more cautiousabout his driving. Though the petitioner is saying that he sloweddownthe speedof the bus when he saw one lorry coming in oppositcdirection by focusing heavy focus lights, he failed toproduce anymaterialto substantiate his contention. Police who investigated in thecaseclearly stated and came to a conclusion that the accidentoccurreddue to rash and negligent driving of the bus only.Accident occurredwhen the petitioner dashed the bus against the stationed Tipper.Theperson who was attending on the stat.ioned Tipper dredin this accident and some other sustained injuries. Ifthepetitionerhadtaken precautionary measures, there was cverypossibility ofavoidingthe accident. The petitioner clearlv stated in hisexplanationthat the driver who attended the st.ationed'lipper onthe middle of the road, failed to take any precautionary mcasureseither by puttingstones around it, or by placing thrcc branchcs to thatvehicle so that the drivers who are moving on thcroad canbe cautiousto avoid the collusion etc., Said positive asscrtion ol thepetitioner is not denied by the respondent by adducing contra evidencc.Law Ofhcerfor the respondent corporation relierl upon decisionreported in(2003) III LL) 122 between North West Kart-rarakaroaclTransport Corporation v. B.U.Doni, in which their Lordships JusticeG.G.Bharukaand Justice S.B.Majnge held"Accidt:nt notshou'n dueto mechanical defect in motor vehicle-Onushclcl shiltcd to driver to show not guilty of rash and negligent dri''irrg["ailure todischarge this burden coupled with history sheet olittrolvenrent inearlter four accidetrts,
4
held justified dismissal_ Need for disciplinary action more as preventive measure and warning to othei L.mptoy..", in these cases of drivers of heavy vehicles, "t.e1s.al.--i.ircipre raid down by their Lordships in the above decision i" "pfri."Ui. t. th. ];;i" :i^;;; present case. It is an admitted fact that the accident .,o, o..r...J due to mechanical defect of the vehicle o.'a,-," to collusion of two vehicles. coming in opposite direction. ii ifr. a.ir.. of the bus took accident. precautionary But measures,. he did not do there so. was_ The every b;.i; possibility which is .f shifted "_rai"g'ih;on to the petirioner is not discharged in d; ; order to establish that there wa.s no negligence on the part of the petitioner but it occurred due to fault of the driver of tfr" "t"ti""Ja fipp.. o.,ty. As the respondent is not disputing about not putting on the parking Iights and not taking precautionafo measu.." iv p""i"g stones around the stationed Tipper or placing ,... L.lJ.,it,"" o, ir, there was contributory negligence_on the part of ttre petitioner and also the person who parked the Tipper on the middle of the road. U"".. r fl.l the punishment of removJ imposed .c;;;;" be too harsh and it is p.op"i to gi"J o".'o.e p.,tr_r.. opportunity "pp".."-.to the petitioner to mend his ways. ff.i". f- frofJ these poinrs parrly in favour of the petitioner and partly i" f"uo", tf the respondent
5
/
1 l. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall standclosed.
No costs.
//TRUECOPY//
SD/. P.PADMANABHAREDDY ASSISTANTREGISTRAR s'/'
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
BSR
GJ g
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1011012023
ORDER
{ ,3e STATE
f, 0tt N8 .bo
11 +
A
*
I
Dt: st P /\1
WP.No.38884 of 2013
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS
(-q.4u Qr'>-dtr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award that reinstated the petitioner without back wages and/notional increments by finding the denial arbitrary.
Whether the contributory negligence of the petitioner justifies the denial of monetary benefits and notional increments after reinstatement.
N. Raia Ram
Road Transport Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Pulla Kartik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
