ORDER
1. The Writ petition is filed questioning the award of the Labour Court dated 19-6-1996 in I.D. No. 421 of 1992 insofar as it denied back wages and other benefits to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the 2nd respondent-Corporal ion on 6-5-1968. On 5-11-1997 while he was operating the bus on the route Kamareddy to Badrachalam, an accident took place at Modugula Gudem (Illendu) in which an old man died. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for causing the accident by negligent driving of the bus and by order dated 28-7-1988 he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioner preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority which also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 (the Act, for brevity) in IDNo.37of 1991. The Labour Court, after considering the matter held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the misconduct and set aside the order of removal and directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate without any other benefits like back wages etc. Insofar as the award denying the back wages and other benefits to the petitioner is concerned, the present writ petition has been filed by the workman.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court having found that the petitioner was not negligent in driving the bus and on account of certain unforeseen circumstances the accident took place and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner, was disproportionate to the misconduct and directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh candidate. It is his further case that the Labour Court having found that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct ought to have granted full back wages and other attendant benefits to the petitioner since the petitioner cannot be found fault with for causing the accident.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submits that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the award of the Labour Court, more especially with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in granting the relief. She, therefore, submits that the award of the Labour Court is legal and justified.
5. I have perused the award and also heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner had caused the accident in which a old man died. But the circumstances under which the accident took place has been narrated by the Labour Court as follows:
'...The petitioner/driver has stated before the Chief Inspector during the enquiry held by him that while the petitioner was driving the bus after starting from Kamareddy bus station and after passing Yellendu village reaching near Modugulagudem the driver observed that a person was coming in opposite direction with a cow and calf and that the said calf suddenly came from right side to the middle of the road as such the driver in order to save the calf swerved the bus to the left side and immediately taken the bus to the right side when doing so an old man suddenly came from left to right side dashed the bus and fell down. The service conductor's statement made during the enquiry also reveal that the driver's version is correct and that to avoid hitting the calf he turned towards left. The passengers have also given a statement to the similar effect. It is to be seen that the respondent Depot Manager viewed that the delinquent petitioner should have driven the vehicle in a controlled speed anticipating such exigencies at any moment. From the scrutiny of the various statements by the various persons including the driver it is made clear that at the relevant time of accident on account of the calf coming to the middle of the road suddenly creating confusion to the driver to avoid hitting the calf resulted in the driver swerving to left again on seeing a person crossing the road the accident occurred as the driver could not have any control over the situation. It is to be seen as urged by the petitioner's Counsel thatthe driver has made all earnest efforts to avoid hitting the calf as well as the pedestrian but in vain. In view of the petitioner's acquittal by the criminal Court he submits that the punishment of termination awarded is absolutely disproportionate and harsh in relation to the gravity of the charge made against him. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances having due regard to the nature of responsibility and risk involved in the performance of the service of the petitioner as driver, this Court cannot accept the impugned orders of removal as sufficient punishment to the petitioner in this case.....'
7. The Labour Court categorically found that the driver had to swerve the bus to the left to avoid hitting the calf and in the meanwhile as the old man suddenly came from left to right and dashed the bus, the accident had occurred. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court having realised that the petitioner cannot be blamed totally directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh candidate.
8. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1968. In view of the fact that he was also acquitted in the criminal case, the circumstances under which the accident has taken place the Labour Court could have been viewed in a proper perspective. If the petitioner is reinstated as fresh candidate, he will be losing more than 25 years of service and at the time of retirement he would not get any benefit whatsoever. It is trite that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act cannot be interfered with by this Court unless such discretion is exercised in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
9. Admittedly in the instant case a senior driver of the Corporation wasinvolved in a accident in which an old man died, but that cannot be a negative factor against him. Accidents do take place and it is one of the risks involved in the post of a driver. Having held that the petitioner-driver cannot be found fault with fully and in order to save the calf the vehicle had to be swerved resulting in an inevitable accident, the Labour Court ought to have moulded the relief keeping in view the service put in by the petitioner and the future service he would be rendering to the Corporation. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is now aged about 56 years and will be retiring at the age of 58 years and that he will not get any retirement benefits if he is treated as a fresh candidate by virture of the award of the Labour Court.
10. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court while granting the relief has not properly exercised the discretion under Section 11-A of the Act. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court to the extent it denied the relief of back wages and other benefits to the petitioner.
11. The -award of Labour Court is modified directing the reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages instead of fresh appointment as directed.
12. The writ petition is accordinglydisposed of. No costs.