Dismissed¶51

The Depot Manager v. S.E.Z.Basha

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Aug 2025WP/13081/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC conductor disciplinary matter; writ of certiorari under Article 226 against Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam award (ID No.14/2014, G.O.Rt No.141); domestic enquiry; non-examination of passenger; Divisional Controller KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254 distinguished as cash bag not checked and no excess cash found; certiorari standard per Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733 (clear case and patent error required); writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

It is settled law that a Writ of Certiorari shall not be issued unless the petitioner establishes a clear case; adopting the principle in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023 INSC 733), only a patent error can be corrected by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.

The Depot Manager Vs S.E.Z.Basha — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, warrants any interference by this Court? +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

On the admitted facts, the cash bag of the workman was not checked at the time of inspection and there was no evidence that the workman had excess cash; hence the passenger's statement that the fare amount was paid had to be established in the domestic enquiry, but the passenger was not examined.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

¶41

Key takeaways

On these peculiar facts, the decision in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioner has no application to the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the workman.ratio¶46
The writ petitioner failed to make a clear case that the learned Tribunal committed a patent error on the face of the award, or that the award was not in accordance with the facts or law; accordingly, Points 1 and 2 were answered against the petitioner.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single Judge (Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Maddipalem Depot, Visakhapatnam filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in ID No.14/2014, dt. 18.02.2019 (published vide G.O.Rt No.141, dt. 16.04.2019), by which the punishment imposed on conductor S.E.Z. Basha was set aside on the ground that the passenger was not examined in the domestic enquiry to prove collection of fare and not issuing the ticket. Citing Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane, 2005 (3) SCC 254 (non-examination of passenger not fatal to the management's case), the petitioner argued the award was perverse. The Court held the precedent had no application on the peculiar facts of this case: the cash bag of the workman was not checked at the time of inspection and no excess cash was found, so examination of the passenger was necessary to establish that the fare was paid, and the passenger was not examined. Invoking Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733, the Court held that a writ of certiorari shall not be issued unless the petitioner establishes a clear case and only a patent error can be corrected; the petitioner failed to make out such a case. Points 1 and 2 answered against the petitioner; writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

BVLNC,J W.P.No.13081 OF 2019 Page 1 of 7 DT: 12.08.2025

¶2

APHC010283852019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3368]

¶6

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 13081/2019

¶10

Between:

¶11

THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MADDIPALEM DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

S E Z BASHA, S/O LATE S.A.RAHIMAN E-752482, CODUCTOR CONDUCTOR, APSRTC SIMHACHALAM DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶15

THE CHAIRMANCUMPRESIDING OFFICER THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUMLABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.A G SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

BVLNC,J W.P.No.13081 OF 2019 Page 2 of 7 DT: 12.08.2025

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No: 13081/2019

¶25

O R D E R:

¶26

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the Writ Petitioner/APSRTC. Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/Workman and learned Asst.Govt. Pleader for the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 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.14/2014 dated 18.02.2019 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Visakhapatnam, published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt No.141 dated 16.04.2019 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel for the Writ Petitioner/APSRTC would argue that the order of the learned Industrial Tribunal is perverse, and not in accordance with the facts proved during the domestic enquiry conducted by the management.

¶29

BVLNC,J W.P.No.13081 OF 2019 Page 3 of 7 DT: 12.08.2025

¶30

He would submit that the learned Industrial Tribunal set aside the punishment imposed on the workman on the ground that the passenger was not examined during the domestic enquiry to prove collection of fare and not issuing the ticket. But, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T.Mane¹ , held that “non-examination of passenger during domestic enquiry is not fatal to the case of the management”. Therefore, the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside.

¶31

The learned counsel for the Workman would submit that in the judgment relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, on facts it was proved that the workman was found in possession of excess cash at the time of inspection, and he did not offer any explanation for the excess cash, and therefore, non-examination of passenger will not vitiate the enquiry.

¶32

In the case on hand, admittedly, cash bag of the workman was not checked at the time of inspection. No excess cash was found with the workman. Hence, examination of passenger is necessary to establish that fare amount was paid to the workman. In those peculiar

¶33

1 2005 (3) SCC 254

¶34

BVLNC,J W.P.No.13081 OF 2019 Page 4 of 7 DT: 12.08.2025

¶35

circumstances of the case, the decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioner has no application to this case.

¶36

In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this writ petition are as under:

¶37

Whether the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, warrants any interference by this Court?

¶38

Whether a Writ of Certiorari seeking quashment of impugned order is maintainable?

¶39

08. POINTS No.1 & 2:

¶40

The Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari o set aside the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.

¶41

It is settled law that the Writ of Certiorari shall not be issued, unless the petitioner establishes a clear case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das and Others² , held that “ a Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued for mere asking, unless the party seeking the relief under Certiorari makes out a clear case. It shall be

¶42

2 2023 INSC 733

¶43

BVLNC,J W.P.No.13081 OF 2019 Page 5 of 7 DT: 12.08.2025

¶44

issued when an order suffers from excess or failure to exercise jurisdiction and when there is an error on the face of the proceedings itself . Only a patent error can be corrected by issuance of Writ of Certiorari ”.

¶45

Perusal of record and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal would disclose the following admitted facts:

¶46

The cash bag of the workman was not checked at the time of inspection. Therefore, no evidence on record to show that the workman was having excess cash at the time of inspection. Hence, the statement of the passenger made to the inspection team that fare amount was paid to the workman has to be established in the domestic enquiry, but the passenger was not examined during the domestic enquiry. In those circumstances peculiar to this case, the judgment relied on by the learned Standing Counsel has no application to the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the workman.

¶47