Dismissed

The Depot Manager, v. The Depot Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024WP/32497/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Corporation challenged a Labour Court award reducing punishment of a conductor from deferment of increments for two years with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the award and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; award dated 02.07.2013 in I.D. No.116 of 2009 confirmed; no order as to costs.

The Depot Manager, Vs The Depot… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 32497 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Tuni Depot, East Godavari District.

¶8

...PETITIONER(S)

¶9

AND

¶10

The Depot Secretary, A.P.S.R.T.C.United Workers Union, Reg. No. G- 2778, FITU, Tuni, East Godavari District, Representing^D.S.Maruthi Conductor. E.600116.

¶11

The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to ID No. 116/2009 dated 02.07.2013 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Visakhapatnam published in the Gazette^{videG.O.RtNo.} 792 dated 17.08.2013 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 42001 OF 2015)

¶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 grant stay of all further proceedings^{inI.D.No. 116/2009}

¶16

dated 2.7.2015 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA

¶18

(SC FOR APSRTC)

¶19

: X

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI CH.MALLIKARJUNA^RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 ; GP FOR LABOUR

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

APHC010786102015

¶24

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

¶25

[3333]

¶26

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 32497/2015

¶30

Between:

¶31

The Depot Manager, ...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

The Depot Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.MALLIKARJUNA RAO CH

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

The brief facts of the case are that respondent was appointed as Conductor on 16.07.1997 and while performing duty on a bus running from Tuni to Mandapam-KKD, the escort of lady passenger of the PHC Certificate holder gave a complaint. According to the complaint, the escort of the lady passenger alleged that the conductor collected Rs.18 /- and issued two full tickets and one half ticket for the journey from Tuni to Annavaram, despite being asked for two half tickets and one full ticket as per the PHC pass. The escort lady passenger went to the conductor to correct the discrepancy and demanded a refund of the excess amount of Rs.3/-. However, the conductor refused to return the amount stating that they have asked for two full tickets and one half ticket and misbehaved with her which amounts to misconduct in terms of APSRTC Employees (Conduct Regulation), 1963.

¶43

Basing on the said complaint, the Assistant Manager at Tuni Depot, conducted a primary inquiry and confirmed that the conductor had issued two full tickets and one half ticket instead of the requested tickets. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued to the conductor by framing charges. In response. the conductor submitted an explanation to the said charges framed. After considering the explanation and after conducting an elaborate enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of deferment of annual increment of the conductor for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide

¶44

¶45

proceedings dated 28.08.2006 which was further confirmed in the Appeal and Review preferred by the petitioner herein.

¶46

Aggrieved by the orders in the Appeal and Review, the respondent filed I.D No.116 of 2009 before the respondent,^wherein after considering the charges framed and also taking^{intoconsiderationofthe} evidence placed, the 2^^ respondent/Labour Court modified^{theordervideI.D} No.116 of 2009 dated 02.07.2013 by setting aside the punishment imposed by the petitioner by awarding deferment of one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and subsequently^{hewasreinstatedinto} service on 11.02.2002. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶47

The 1®* respondent has filed counter-affidavit, averring that when he was conducting duty from Tuni to Mandapam-KKD on 26.06.2005,^theescort of a lady passenger asked for two full tickets and^{onehalfticketfromTunito} Annavaram after showing PHC Certificate of one passenger^and issued tickets as per the relevant fare. The Corporation alleged that the passenger made a complaint against the 1®* respondent stating^{thathemisbehavedwith} the passenger and failed to issue tickets, as requested. However, the 1®* respondent contended that the passengers have boarded^thebusatTuni and bound for Annavaram and shown one PHC certificate and after passing of 3 stages, the passengers demanded that as per physically handicapped pass the tickets amounting to Rs.15/but not Rs.18/- and misbehaved. The 2"^^ respondent/labour Court held that being a original adjudicating authority under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, the punishment imposed on the

¶48

¶49

¶50

respondent is contrary to the evidence and as well as the judgments laid down by this Hon’ble Court and as well as the Apex^Court.

¶51

The further reading of the counter-affidavit states that the writ petition itself is not at all maintainable, on the ground that the corporation imposed a major punishment without conducting domestic enquiry, which is contrary to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh /s State of Punjab. The issue was taken to the notice of the 2^^^ respondent by the trade union and was subsequently referred to the government under the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶52

The findings of the Labour Court are that:

¶53

The conductor was leveled with the two charges:

¶54

i) Regulation No.28 (xvii), (xxxi) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963, for issuing valid concessional pass with escort travelling.

¶55

ii) Regulation No.28 (xxi), (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963, for misbehaving with the complainant, when asked for tickets issued without concession and insulted in the presence of co-passengers.

¶56

And further that the mistake on the part of workman is that he issued ticket to the escort without observing, hence the misconduct^{oftheconductor} was proved and the same was admitted. The conductor should behave politely, but here the conductor instead of convincing the passengers,^{misbehavedwith} the passengers which lead to filing of the complaint.

¶57

Upon perusing the evidence and the material placed on record, the labour Court opined that the conductor is found guilty for only one charge and denied the second charge and should not be left without any punishment for the misconduct, as the management did not conduct any regular enquiry, basing on these charges.

¶58

¶59

After an elaborate consideration of the matter and taking relevant legal principles into consideration, the Labour Court deemed^{thatthepunishment} imposed by the corporation violated principles of natural^{justiceandpasseda} valid order dated 02.07.2013 in I.D No.116 of 2009 by modifying the order and by setting aside the punishment imposed by the petitioner^byawarding deferment of one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

¶60

This Court having considered findings of the Labour Court, upon perusing the material placed on record and the submissions^ofthelearned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is not^{inclinedinterferewiththe} award passed by the Labour Court.

¶61

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, by confirming the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D No.116 of 2009, dated^{02.07.2013.There} shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶63

¶64

To,

¶65

SD/- K. TATA RAO //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶66

SECTTON OFFICER

¶67