WP/29111/2008 of The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Vs Sri Pagididpalli Yesupadam on 31 December 2008

O R D E R:-

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the award, dated24.4.2008 passed in I.D.No.120 of 2005 on the file of the Labour Court,Guntur.

The petitioners assert that the 1[st] respondent, during the course ofhis employment as Casual Driver, caused an accident while operatingBus No. AP9Z 4624, as a result, a lady pedestrian succumbed to injuries. After preliminary enquiry was conducted, the 1[st] respondent was placedunder suspension, and two charges were framed against him, andsubsequently, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the order ofremoval, the 1[st] respondent filed I.D. No.120 of 2005, and the learnedPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur passed the impugned awardsetting aside the order of removal of the 1[st] respondent from service and the petitioners herein were directed toreinstate the 1[st] respondent with continuity of service and otherconsequential benefits except back wages. Challenging the award, dated24.4.2008 the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the1[st] respondent-driver has altogether created a new theory in order todefend his case even though there is negligence on his part in causingthe accident. However, the Labour Court, without considering the sameand without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspectivehas passed the impugned award, setting aside the order of removalpassed against the 1[st] respondent. Hence, he prays that the writ petitionbe allowed.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari are verylimited. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai[[1]], the apex Court heldas follows:

“Certiorari, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is issued forcorrecting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinateCourt is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction – by assumingjurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of itsjurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or(iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure oracting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is noprocedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.”

It is seen from the conclusions reached by the Labour Court thatthe 1[st] respondent, in the preliminary enquiry, examined two passengerswho travelled in the same bus and their evidence is that a Scooter camein a zig-zag manner opposite to the bus driven by 1[st] respondent, and inorder to avert any major accident, the 1[st] respondent applied brakessuddenly and a result thereof, the bus moved towards right side of theroad, and in the meantime, a lady passenger who tried to cross the roadfrom back side of an Auto without observing the bus, was hit by the rightside bumper of the bus, resulting in her instantaneous death. Thisevidence clearly indicates that the 1[st] respondent-Driver could notanticipate that a lady would suddenly cross the road from back side of theAuto. The finding given by the Labour Court shows that the bus was notinspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector to verify as to whether thebrakes were in good condition or not. The enquiry officer who gaveevidence did not state that the brakes of the bus failed. It is also held thatthe 1[st] respondent slowed down the vehicle on seeing the Scootercoming in his opposite direction, and in spite of his best efforts to avoidaccident, the accident took place. Hence, taking into consideration, theevidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the accident was beyond the control of the 1[st] respondent’s anticipation andthe findings of the enquiry officer are not based on material evidence.

Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason tointerfere with the award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of itsjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

______________

N.V.RAMANA, J

31[st] December, 2008

bcj

[1]AIR 2003 SC 3044 = 2003 AIR SCW 3872