HC Upholds Labour Court on Driver Punishment Set Aside

Case Details: Depot Manager vs. Depot Secretary - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 635 (HC-Andhra Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dr K Manmadha Rao, J.
• Vinod Kumar Tarlada for the Petitioner.
• A G Satyanarayana Rao for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Respondent No.1-driver, while driving a bus, met with a head-on collision with a tractor, resulting in a fatality, injuries and damage to the bus. He was charge-sheeted, a domestic enquiry was held, and the punishment of deferment of annual increment for one year, with cumulative effect, was imposed.

A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of the Ravulapalem depot, where a prima facie case was established against the driver. The 1st petitioner placed the 1st respondent under suspension and issued a charge sheet under Regulation No. 28( ix )( a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

On perusal of the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent, the disciplinary authority felt the need to conduct detailed enquiry into the charge and as such the enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry, providing the 1st respondent all reasonable opportunities at every stage.

Based on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment deferring the driver’s annual increment for one year with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the Respondent no. 1 raised I.D. No. 3 of 2018 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, which set aside the punishment and directed the restoration of the increment. Petitioners/Depot manager challenged the said Award.

It was noted that the Labour Court found that a police case had been registered against a tractor driver, who was facing criminal trial, but a domestic enquiry officer drew erroneous conclusions and ignored supporting evidence, and the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and reflected a non-application of the mind.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering submissions and upon perusing the entire material on record, there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the Labour Court.