The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by APSRTC challenging a Labour Court award that modified a punishment involving deferment of an employee's annual increment. The Court held the Tribunal's decision was justified and declined interference.
The writ petition was dismissed without costs; no order as to costs.
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
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33finn of
Between:
DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC W.G. DIST.. Andhra Pradesh State Road ransport Corporation Eluru depot, Eluru, West Godavari district
...PETITIONER AND
...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 pieased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to I.D No.28/2008 dated 2.6.2012 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur published in the Gazette vide G. O.Rt No.973 dated 16.08.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction
LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP Kin- 43567 OF
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in I.D. No.28/2008 dated 2.6.2012 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur pending disposal of writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondents 2 : GP FOR LABOUR (AP) The Court made the following : Order
APHC010228522015
|L|.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33800/2015
Between; D.m., Apsrtc, W.g. Dist.
...PETITIONER
AND
D V Ramana Rao Ano and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER;
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;“. .to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to I.D.No.28/2008 dated 2.6.2012 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.973 dated 16.08.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and pass....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Depot manager of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Eluru Depot, West Godavari District and the respondent No.1 was appointed as a regular driver during November, 1977 in Eluru Depot and while drivingtheBus-AP-9Z-9165 on the route from Badrachalam to Eluru, an accident took place on 21.03.1997 at 09.05 hours near Tellamade Bridge. On receipt of the information from the respondent No.1, the Senior Traffic Inspector of Sattupalli Depot attended the spot and submitted a preliminary enquiry report, basing on which, a charge sheet was framed against the respondent No.1. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No.1 had submitted his explanation and after considering the entire evidence on record, he was issued a show cause notice dated 24.07.2002 seeking his explanation as to why actionshouldnotbeinitiated against him. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 submitted an explanation to the said show cause notice and after perusing the same the Depot Manager, Eluru Depot, West Godavari District had passed final orders dated 28.08.2002, by imposing a punishment of deferment of annual increment of the respondent No.1 for a period of two (02) yearswhichshalleffectonthe future increments of the respondent No.1 3. Challenging the said order dated 28.08.2002, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager,Eluruandthe same was rejected on 27.01.2003. Subsequently, a review petition was alsofiled before the Regional manager. West Godavari Region, Eluru and vide proceedings
dated 18.07.2006, the same was also rejected. Aggrievedbythesame,he filed I.D.No.28 of 2008 before the respondent No.2/theLabourCourt,Guntur, v^herein the Labour Court on 02.06.2012, modified thepunishmentawardedto the petitioner by awarding deferment of annual incrementforaperiodoftwo without cumulative effect. It is further stated thattherespondent (02) years No.1 had also attained the age of Superannuation on30.06.2011.Aggrieved by the award in I.D.No.28 of 2008, the present writpetitionisfiled.
"The writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the revisional incremental stage for one year without authority to that of reduction of pay by one cumulative effect, it is made clear that the above modified punishment is withoutany monetary benefits. ”
Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly modified the punishment imposed by the petitioner herein and warrants no interference of this Court.
- Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTON OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:02/08/2024
I 0 7 FEB 2025 o.
^ . Current Section
ORDER
WP.No.33800 of 2015
DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award modifying a criminal punishment of deferment of annual increment.
Whether the Tribunal's decision to remove the cumulative effect of the deferment warrants interference.
Depot Manager, APSRTC, Eluru Depot
D.V. Ramana Rao
The Labour Court, Guntur
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
