Appeal against writ order reinstating a railway corpsman. Bench noted lack of material proving single judge's finding of perversity despite workman already reinstated for a decade.
Writ appeal dismissed; no costs; all pending miscellaneous applications dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.465 OF 2012
(Through physical mode)
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa Depot, Y.S.R. District.
..Appellant
Versus
P. Lakshumaiah, Conductor, S/o P. Subbaiah, R/o Korlakunta (P&V), Obulavaripally Mandal, Kadapa District and another.
…Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. N. Srihari, Standing Counsel.
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. V. Padmanabha Rao
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:06.07.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This writ appeal would call in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.11022 of 2002 preferred by workman (respondent No.1 herein) with a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and without back wages.
HCJ & DVSSS,J W.A.No.465 of 2012
2
conducted by the Regional Enforcement Squad, Kadapa, wherein it was alleged that certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. The workman was issued a charge memo, for which he submitted explanation, but being dissatisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was conducted, wherein the workman was found guilty and was terminated from service by order dated 07.01.1998. The appeal and review filed by the workman were rejected, against which, he raised Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, vide I.D.No.313 of 1998, which was decided against him on 19.09.2001. Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the above I.D., the workman filed the writ petition.
HCJ & DVSSS,J W.A.No.465 of 2012
3
Tribunal also being oblivious of this material evidence wrongly confirmed the findings of the enquiry officer, which are liable to be set aside.
HCJ & DVSSS,J W.A.No.465 of 2012
4
examination of the management witness. However, the deposition of the management witness has not been placed before us so as to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse.
that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse and in view of the fact that the workman has already been reinstated into service and he has been working for the last ten years, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Nn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the writ court order reinstating a workman whom the judgment suggests has not been shown to be reinstated.
Whether the finding of the single judge regarding perverse findings in domestic enquiry was supported by material on record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (PVT) Ltd.Referred¶6
Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (PVT) Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 813 · Who else cites this
M/S Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and OthersReferred¶6
M/S Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Others (1976) 1 SCC 518 · Who else cites this
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa Depot
P. Lakshumaiah
Prashant Kumar Mishra
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
