AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This petition, though listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel for parties, finally heard and disposed of by this order. Petitioner-public road transport corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 18-4-2013 allowing I.D. No. 207 of 2010 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, Annexure-F, has presented this petition.
Facts leading to the order dated 30-6-2007 passed by the petitioner imposing the punishment of withholding respondent-driver''s one annual increment with cumulative effect and deduction of one month''s salary in ten monthly installments was pursuant to a domestic enquiry extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent, on the allegation that on 30-7-2005, at about 2.45 p.m. the respondent while driving a Volvo Bus belonging to the petitioner-Corporation, in a rash and negligent manner on Bangalore to Mysore Road, caused an accident, in front of Mudugere Government Hospital, Channapatna Taluk, by dashing the hind side of the lorry, whence the Enquiry Officer returned a finding that the charge was proved, and the Disciplinary Authority on an independent assessment of facts, circumstances and evidence on record, concurred with the findings and imposed the punishment.
That order, when subject-matter of conciliation proceeding led to a failure report followed by the State Government in its letter dated 20-10-2010 referring for adjudication the industrial dispute over the order of punishment to the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore, registered as I.D. No. 207 of 2010. Before the Industrial Tribunal, parties having filed their respective pleadings, the premise on which a preliminary issue when framed a finding was recorded holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. There afterwards, the Industrial Tribunal examined whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were perverse and accordingly observed that in Ex. M. 4 the logbook of the bus there was an entry that the right side brake was weak and regard being had to the opinion of the officers of the petitioner in Ex. M. 6 that the lorry proceeding ahead of the bus had applied brake suddenly without indication and driver of the bus had not maintained safe distance, the accident occurred coupled with the fact that the witness for the petitioner admitted that the lorry driver was prosecuted by the police, jumped to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry was perverse and by the award impugned, set aside the order of punishment and entitled the respondent to consequential monetary benefits.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the Industrial Tribunal recorded a perverse finding although the respondent placed no material over the safe distance that he had maintained from the lorry moving ahead of the bus which aspect of the matter when not considered resulted in perverse finding. Learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the vacillatory statements of the respondent-workman, while in the reply to the article of charge stated that the lorry proceeding ahead of the bus suddenly applied brake without any indication, nevertheless in the cross-examination of the management witness suggested that the driver of the stationary lorry suddenly moved the lorry to the middle of the road which the workman had not anticipated. In addition, it is submitted, at the time of accident, it was bright daylight and the place of accident being a straight road, visibility was clear and if the lorry was proceeding ahead of the bus in question, then the respondent ought to have noticed the lorry and maintained safe distance and having not shown circumspection, caused the accident. Learned Counsel hastens to add that merely because the jurisdictional police prosecuted the lorry driver by itself and nothing more, it cannot be said that the respondent-driver of the bus in question was not guilty of causing the accident. It is lastly submitted that the entry in Ex. M. 4 logbook, was done by the driver after the accident, since the log sheet was in his custody.
Sri L. Shekar, learned Counsel for respondent-workman seeks to sustain the award impugned as well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Learned Counsel submits that the defence statement, in writing furnished to the Enquiry Officer contained extracts of the evidence of the management witness and does not contain the statement of the respondent, since respondent maintained that the driver of the lorry moving ahead of the bus suddenly applied brakes and when the bus in question was sought to be brought to a halt, as the brake was weak, the accident occurred. Learned Counsel submits that there was no vacillating statements made by the respondent.
Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, the question for decision making is:
"Whether the Industrial Tribunal, in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, returned perverse findings?"
Facts not being in dispute, more appropriately, that respondent when driving the Volvo bus belonging to the petitioner from Bangalore to Mysore, an accident occurred at about 2.45 p.m. in which the front portion of the Volvo Bus dashed the hind side of the lorry proceeding ahead. The explanation of the respondent-workman who had special knowledge of the accident is that, the brakes of the bus when applied were not effective. It may be that the lorry proceeding ahead of the bus in question applied brakes suddenly but circumspection required the driver of the bus to maintain a safe distance. It would be violation of Regulation 24 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which says that, "no driver of a vehicle shall apply brake abruptly, unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons", nevertheless, Regulation 23 states, "the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop". Therefore, it was for the respondent to lay before the Enquiry Officer, material to establish that he had maintained safe distance between the lorry and the bus. Such is not the evidence tendered by the respondent-workman in the domestic enquiry. A perusal of the explanation to the article of charge does not indicate safe distance maintained by the respondent to avoid the collision.
There can be no dispute that Ex. M. 4 contains a recording that the right side brake is weak, which is written by the respondent. If that is so, in the absence of material on record to establish complaint lodged by the workman before taking the bus on route, though it was open for the respondent-workman to have lodged such a complaint with the officers, over the weak brake on the right side hence not safe to drive the vehicle on long distance between Bangalore and Mysore on a State Highway, the recording in Ex. M. 4 does not aid the case of the workman. Merely because logbook, Ex. M. 4 contains a recording that right side brake was weak, by itself and nothing more, it cannot be said that the bus did suffer a mechanical defect, as a result of which the accident occurred. In the accident report, Ex. M. 6 submitted by the Officers of the petitioner-corporation, which is based on an inspection of the spot, post accident, there is no doubt that it states that the lorry driver applied break suddenly without any indication and as the driver of the bus did not maintain safe distance hence the accident occurred. This opinion of the officer who visited the spot of accident, is indicative of the fact that the bus was driven very close on to lorry ahead, without maintaining a safe distance. It is possible that the police, apparently without knowledge of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 may have filed an F.I.R. against the lorry driver. That circumstance by itself will not enure to the benefit of the workman in a domestic enquiry. The enquiry before the employer was to ascertain the manner in which the workman discharged his duty of driving the vehicle belonging to the corporation, at the time of accident and whether his driving was the cause and whether he could have avoided the accident.
Needless to state that every driver of a public transport service must be circumspect when driving a motor vehicle and must be cautious of other users of the road and cannot put to risk the lives of commuters. Perhaps the reason for Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. Commonsense dictates that drivers of motor vehicles must maintain distance between two vehicles moving one behind the other, since if the vehicle moving ahead suddenly slows down or stops, the vehicle on the hind side would have enough time to avert a collision.
In the circumstances, it is no doubt true that the Enquiry Officer did not look into aspects essential of consideration, i.e., maintenance of distance from vehicle in front as opined by the officers in Ex. M. 6, nevertheless, did stumble upon the correct conclusion that the respondent was guilt of the charge. The Industrial Tribunal, without appreciating that aspect of the matter over the failure on the part of the respondent in maintaining safe distance from vehicle in front, jumped to conclusion by recording perverse finding. In the result, this petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court is quashed and I.D. No. 207 of 2010 is rejected.