The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Vs Moodi Nagarju… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Vs Moodi Nagarju… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the award dated 14.08.2006 made in I.D. No.158 of 2003 by the 2nd respondent Tribunal is legally sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The Tribunal did address charge No.2: it arrived an unequivocal finding that the earlier version given by the two passengers (K. Bobilli and Gangamma Dhora) differed from and was inconsistent with their subsequent statements (Ex.M.17 and Ex.M.19) before the Enquiry Officer, and decided in favour of the employee; hence the petitioner's contention that charge No.2 was not properly addressed does not stand within the judicial parameters.

Ratio / Principle

The High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not ordinarily re-visit the evidence; the petitioner's case pertains solely to disputed questions of fact, which fall exclusively within the Tribunal's domain.

Key takeaways

Drawing on the Apex Court parameters in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, this Court holds that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority and has limited scope of interference in a Labour Court/Tribunal award, particularly on factual aspects.ratio¶54
Even assuming the petitioner's entire argument to be true, the Corporation merely challenged disputed questions of fact finding arrived by the Tribunal and was unable to point out any inherent flaws in the award dated 14.08.2006.ratio¶59
The award of the 2nd respondent Tribunal does not suffer from any impunity; the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Single Judge, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 filed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 14.08.2006 in I.D. No.158/2003 (published as G.O.Rt.No.2120 dated 10.10.2006), which set aside the removal from service of the 1st respondent, a conductor, for alleged ticket irregularities detected in a surprise check on 21.12.2002, and ordered reinstatement with back wages. Held: (i) in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 the High Court does not ordinarily re-visit or re-appreciate evidence, and disputed questions of fact fall exclusively within the Tribunal's domain; (ii) the Tribunal had squarely dealt with charge No.2, finding the passengers' earlier spot statements inconsistent with their subsequent statements (Ex.M.17 and Ex.M.19) before the Enquiry Officer; (iii) relying on the parameters in Union of India & ors v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the High Court is not an appellate authority over a labour award and its power of interference is limited, particularly on factual aspects. The Corporation could point to no inherent flaw in the award; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications also dismissed.

[3504]

APHC010011522007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, SEVENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 1128/2007

Between:

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc.,

...PETITIONER

AND

Moodi Nagarju Another and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR LABOUR

2.S V RAMANA

The Court made the following ORDER:

The present writ petition has been instituted by invoking Art. 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:-

“…… to issue any writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the award dated 14.08.2006 in I.D.No. 158/2003 on the file of the 2nd respondent which was published G.O.Rt.No.2120, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.l) Department dated

2

10.10.2006, published on the notice board on 4.11.2006 and declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction and consequently quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.….”

The instant writ petition is filed assailing an award dated 14.08.2006 made in I.D No.158 of 2003 by the 2^nd respondent, whereunder, the 1^st respondent herein challenged his removal of service order, which was set aside by the 2^nd respondent and ordered for reinstatement with back wages.

According to the petitioner Corporation version, respondent No.1 joined as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation on 21.12.2002. While he was discharging his duties as a Conductor in the bus bearing No.AP9Z9066 on the route from Y.Ramavaram to Eleswaram, a surprise check was conducted by the petitioner Corporation authorities. During the same, the authorities found irregularities by the 1^st respondent, in not issuing the requisite tickets to the passengers. Consequently, the following charges were framed against the 1^st respondent/Employee:-

"For having collected an amount of Rs.4/- from a passenger who boarded the bus at Y.Ramavaram bound for Choutidibbalu (Ex.stages 14 to 12) and issued the ticket bearing No.681/751400 of Rs.3/-, thus you have collected

3

and issued lower denomination ticket worth of Rs.l/- to the said passenger, while you were conducting the vehicle No.9066 on the route Y. Ramavaram - Eleswaram n 21.12.2002, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix)(a)(b), (xxiii) and (xxxi) & xxxii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963"

"For having issued the used ticket bearing No.681/751401 of Rs.3/-demn., which was already sold out to the passenger at from stage No.14 to 13 in 14.15 hours trip from Y.Ramavaram to Eleswaram to a passenger after collection of Rs.3/- at his boarding point itself, who boarded the bus at Panasalapalem bound for Choutidibbalu (Ex.stages 13 to 12), while you were conducting the vehicle No.9066 on the route Y.Ramavaram - Eleswaram on 21.12.2002, which constitutes misconduct under Regulations 28(xxiii), (xxxi) and xxxii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

The case of the petitioner Corporation is that the 1^st respondent has given a plausible explanation to the above charges. Subsequently,

an Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the enquiry, the guilt of the 1^st respondent was established. Thus, the petitioner Corporation issued proceedings dated 14.06.2003 against the 1^st respondent, and removed him from service.

Sri Tarlada Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation by reiterating the averments made in his affidavit, specifically pointed out that the 2^nd respondent Tribunal failed to consider the evidence in respect of the charges framed against the 1^st respondent

4

and argued that said approach of the Tribunal is not correct. He also further contends that S.R., which was confiscated by the APSRTC checking personnel reveals the factual aspects only.

The counsel for the petitioner’s Corporation contends that the appellate as well as the revisional authorities rejected the case of the 1^st respondent vide respective orders dated 28.09.2003 and 24.10.2003. Challenging the above removal orders, the 1^st respondent instituted I.D No.158 of 2003, on the file of the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal without perceiving the ground realities and without considering the evidence in the right perspective allowed the I.D by passing an award dated 14.08.2006, whereby, the petitioner Corporation was directed to reinstate the 1^st respondent into service with back wages. Thus, the writ petition is instituted seeking to set aside the 2^nd respondent award dated 14.08.2006.

On behalf of respondent No.2, the learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the award passed by the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal is in consonance with the relevant material and by following the well settled legal principles of the service jurisprudence only.

5

The learned Assistant Government Pleader vociferously contended that, the petitioner Corporation has only raised issues related to disputed facts, which falls exclusively within the domain of the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal. He further argued that the Tribunal’s appreciation of evidence is realistic and plausible, having duly considered all the facts

and circumstances involved in the lis. At last, he supported the passing of the award by the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal.

It is trite to note that though the 1^st respondent made an appearance through an Advocate, no counter affidavit was found in the instant case Court file. However, to meet the ends of justice, this Court has gone through the relevant material papers placed on record and proceeds to pass the following orders.

Consideration of the Court :

After hearing the submissions of the respective counsels on record

and perusing the material on record in the lis, the moot question arises is whether the award dated 14.08.2006 made in I.D No.158 of 2003 by the 2^nd respondent Tribunal is legally sustainable or not?

It is the specific case asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation that, the Tribunal had failed to consider the evidence relating to charge No.2 and its findings.

6

In this context, this Court has thoroughly examined the relevant record, which reveals that the place of boarding by two passengers namely, K. Bobbili and Gangamma Dhora plays a crucial role, which comes under the arena of disputed question of fact. In other words the Tribunal categorically perceived that, the earlier spot statement by the said passengers are different and distinct from their subsequent statement made before the Enquiry Officer, which were marked as Ex.M.17 and Ex.M.19. Therefore, the Tribunal by appreciating the inconsistent, contradictory versions of the said passengers and also by taking ground realities into consideration arrived its specific findings in favour of respondent No.1/Employee.

Even assuming for a moment that, the entire argument of the petitioner Corporation is true and correct, it is evident that the petitioner is merely challenging the disputed questions of fact finding arrived by the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal, which fall exclusively within the Tribunal’s domain. It is well settled proposition that, the High Court while exercising the powers vested under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily re-visit the evidence. In view of the above, this Court is of considered opinion that the case projected by the petitioner pertains solely to the disputed questions of facts.

7

In this backdrop, it is pertinent to note the Apex Court dictum held way back in the year 1963 itself, in Union of India & ors Vs P.Gunasekaran¹ . The Apex Court after appreciating the relevant aspects, more particularly, with regard to the scope of jurisdiction of all the High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, held as follows:-

“13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”

From the conspectus of the above legal parameters, it is crystal clear that the High Court does not act as an Appellate Authority and it has limited scope of interference in the Labour Courts award, more particularly, in respect of the factual aspects.

In the light of the well settled legal principles held by the Apex Court, followed by this Court in the catena of judgments, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation, in respect of charge No.2 claiming that it was not properly addressed by the Tribunal

1(2015) 2 SCC 610

8

below, does not stand within the judicial parameters. Furthermore, the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal arrived its unequivocal finding that, concerning charge No.2 that the earlier version provided by the two passengers namely K. Bobilli and Gangamma Dhora, differed and was inconsistent with their subsequent statement made under Ex.M.17 and Ex.M.19 before the concerned Enquiry Officer.

Apparently, even when considering the entire case of the petitioner Corporation, its version only hit the factum of the finding dealt by the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal. However, the petitioner Corporation was not able to point out any inherent flaws in the award dated 14.08.2006.

For the foregoing conclusion arrived at supra, coupled with the settled legal position detailed above, this Court finds that the award of the 2^nd respondent Tribunal does not suffer from any impunity. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 07.03.2025 GVK

9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION No.1128 of 2007

Date: 07.03.2025

GVK