Dismissed

The Depot Manager, Chittoor v. P.Rajagopal, Chittoor Dist,and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Dec 2023WP/19199/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that reinstated an ex-conductor respondent without back wages. The court found no sufficient ground to interfere, also directing vacating of interim suspension.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal award; vacating of interim suspension.

The Depot Manager, Chittoor Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

SATURDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19199 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor-1 Depot, Chittoor.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

P.Rajagopal, S/o P.Sanjeevi, Ex.RTC Conductor, aged 49 years, lllathur (Village), Zambada (Post), Vijayapuram (Mandal), Chittoor^District.

¶11

The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Triubnal-cum-L abour Court, Anantapur.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ petition order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to I.D.No.180 of 2006 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cm-Labour Court, Anantapur and quash the Award dated 18-11-2010.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWPMP. NO: 23184 OF 20111

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Award dated 18-11-2010 made in I.D.No.180 of 2006 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananatapur pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012fWVMP. NO: 2186 OF 2012)

¶17

Between:

¶18

P.Rajagopal, S/o P.Sanjeevi, Ex.RTC Conductor, aged 49 years, lllathur (Village), Zambada (Post), Vijayapuram (Mandal), Chittoor^District.

¶19

Petitiner/Respondent

¶20

AND

¶21

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor-1 Depot, Chittoor.

¶22

The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-L abour Court, Anantapur.

¶23

Respondents/Petitioner/Respondent

¶24

, Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension passed in WPMP No. 23184 of 2011 in WP No. 19199 of 2011, dated 11-7-2011.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. W. V. S. RAJESWARI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI.P. GOVINDA RAJULU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Writ Petition No. 19199 of 2011

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

In the present writ petition, the petitioner corporation challenges the Award, dt. 18.11.2010, in I.D. No. 180 of 2006 passed by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, whereby the respondent was reinstated into service^with continuity of service, attendant benefits but without^back- wages on the principle of ‘No work no pay’.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1992,^the 1st respondent was appointed as a conductor in the Corporation. On 09.09.2005 while the 1®^ respondent^was on duty in Bus bearing No.3614 on Chittoor to Aragonda,^a check was conducted and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found, based on which laid a charge sheet and invited an explanation from the l^t respondent. After a thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer removed^the 1st respondent from service. The 1st respondent challenged her removal from service filed an appeal before the appellate authority, but the same was rejected, confirming

¶33

¶34

the order of the appropriate authority. Thereafter,^the respondent preferred review before the reviewing authority. The said review was also rejected. Thereafter, the respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Anantapur, vide I.D. No. 180 of 2006 seeking reinstatement into service, by which the tribunal reinstated the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and further held that the l^t respondent is not entitled to back wages on the principle of ‘No work, no pay’. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Corporation filed the present writ petition.

¶35

Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioner and perused the Award under challenge.

¶36

The Tribunal has gone into detail with respect to the necessity for modification of the punishment. After considering the evidence on record, arrived at a decision^to modify the punishment and passed the award.

¶37

Considering the nature of the allegations and the detailed manner in which the Award has passed, this^Court

¶38

¶39

is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the

¶40

tribunal, 2”^ respondent herein.

¶41

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without

¶42

costs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

Sd/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

/ sEcVioig^OFFICER

One CC to SRI. W. V. S. RAJESWARI Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to SRI.P. GOVINDA RAJULU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three C.D.Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/12/2023

ORDER

WP.No.19199 of 2011

ii^
\K^
M4y
''%V^ (^Ut'r
202'^
/
nj/
.c;,y

¶57

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

The Depot Manager, Chittoor v. P.Rajagopal, Chittoor Dist,and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager, Chittoor v. P.Rajagopal, Chittoor Dist,and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.v.S.G.Krishnudu, Vs M.D.Transmission Corp. of Ap Ltd.

B.Venkateswara Rao, Guntur. Vs the Dy.Registrar of Co.Op.Societies, Guntur and Ano

B.Srinivasa Rao, W.G Dist Vs the Regional Office, W.G Dist and Another

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Anantapur Dist., A.P. Vs v. Ranganath, Anantapur Dist., and Anr.

Shaik Masthan Vali and 3 Others Vs Director of School Edn., Hyd. and 3 Others

M.P.v.Swamy, Vs The Apsrtc, Rep.byits Vice Chairman and Managing Director