APSRTC management challenged the Labour Court award quashing deferment of annual increment imposed on a driver for misconduct. The High Court held there was no illegality or perversity in the award and dismissed the writ petition.
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:lAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 1089 OF 2021
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
Reg.No.3108 Kakinada, East Godavari District Representing
V.V.Reddy, E-490161, Driver.
...RESPONDENTS
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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining and related to award passed in I.D. No.89 of 2017 dated 05.09.2019 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law and consequentially quash the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the award dated 05.09.2019 in I.D. No. 89 of 2017 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR
APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V.SUDHAKAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
APHC010014552021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 1089/2021
Between:
The Depot Manager, and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Depot Union Secretary and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.VSUDHAKAR REDDY
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitutionofIndiafor
the following relief;
“....to issue an appropriate Writ Order or DirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWrit of Certiorari call for the records pertaining and relatedto award passedin I D No 89 of 2017 dated 05.09.2019 on the file of the Industrial TrIbunal-cum-Labo ur Court Visakhapatnam and declaring the same as arbitrary illegal and contrarytothelawandconsequentiallyquashthe same to pass..."
3
4
^2
6
- On a plain reading of the above, it is observed that, any dispute between the employers and employee which is connected with the employment, as per I.D. Act, the Tribunal has power to give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment.
closed.
Sd/- U.SRI DEVi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
\ ^
To,
SECTIO FICER
5
incident and to that extent the entire punishment imposed by the management made the cascading effect on the career of the respondent/petitioner without any proof as righiiy pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1®' respondent/petitioner to that extent and there is no substance in the submissions made by learned Law Officer to that extent and the punishment appears shockingly disproportionate and is liable to be set aside and therefore held that “f/?e action of the Depot Manger, APSRTC, Kakinada by imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect in respect of V.V. Reddy, E-490161, Driver, is not justified and the same is hereby set aside."
11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. - Where an industrial dispute relating to the dischargeordismissalofa workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks ift, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:
HIGH COURT
DATED:13/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.1089 of 2021
DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere with a punishment of deferment of increment where Section 11-A applies only to discharge or dismissal.
Whether the Tribunal's award setting aside the punishment was arbitrary or perverse for want of reasons.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kakinada Depot
The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Rajamahendravaram
The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Rajamahendravaram
Depot Union Secretary, APSRTC National Mazdoor Union (representing V.V.Reddy)
The Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
