The Depot Manager, Vs A.G. Vinayagam A.G. Vinayakam

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 m the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the award made in I.D. No. 25 of 2014, dated 21.01.2015 on the file of the

¶19

Labour Court, Anantapur, which was published in the gazette vide

¶20

G.O.Rt.No. 270, dated 15.05.2015 as illegal arbitrary and quash the same.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2nifi

¶22

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 suspend the operation of the award dated 21.01.2015 made in I.D. No. 25 of 2014 on the file of Industrial Tribunal -.cum Labour Court, Ananthapur pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC)

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: GP FOR LABOUR

¶25

The Court made the following order:

¶26

1

¶27

APHC010319322018

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶29

[3396]

¶30

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 14708/2018

¶35

Between:

¶36

The Depot Manager, and Others

¶37

...PETITIONER(S)

¶38

AND

¶39

A G Vinayagam A G Vinayakam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitloner(S):

¶41

ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 2.

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:

¶47

“ to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating^to the award made in I.D.No.25 of 2014, dated 21.01.2015 on the file of the Labour Court,

¶48

2

¶49

s

¶50

Anantapur, which was published in the gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.270, dated 15.05.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same and pass such other order or orders ”

¶51

Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel^forAPSRTC appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the 2’^^ respondent.

¶52

Learned Standing Counsel for petitioners would submit^thatthe 1 St respondent worked as Conductor in APSRTC. Because of^{hisunauthorized} absence for six days from 23.02.2008 to 29.03.2008, disciplinary action has been initiated against him. His guilt is proved and^{hewasremovedfrom} service. Against which, he preferred appeal that was rejected. Thereafter, he preferred review that was also rejected. Subsequently, the respondent after lapse of seven years, filed I.D.No.25 of 2014 before the Labour Court, Anantapur, that was allowed on 21.01.2015 by setting aside the order of removal and ordered to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and with all attendant benefits except back-wages within^{onemonthfromthe} date of publication of the Award. Learned counsel would^{submitthatthe} 1 St respondent being the Conductor has to maintain highest discipline in the Department. If the individual is left with no punishment, the other employees also may follow him. Learned counsel would further^{submitthatthereshould} be some punishment to the person, who has done misconduct by absent from

¶53

3

¶54

duty without obtaining any leave or prior permission. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned^{orderpassedbythe} Labour Court.

¶55

Notice which was sent to the respondent returned as^un-claimed. None represented on his behalf.

¶56

Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, because of unauthorized absence for^sixdays,the 1 St respondent was removed from service, It is his explanation that he was suffering from serious ill-health, that was not considered^{bytheDepartment.} Of course, he preferred appeal and review, that were rejected. The individual approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court considered^hisclaimand passed award in his favour, against which, the Department^preferredthe present petition.

¶57

Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has taken^averycorrect view since the punishment awarded to the individual^{isquitedisproportionate} to the alleged misconduct. Learned Judge has also followed^thebalancing approach while directing the Corporation to reinstate^the individual without back-wages.

¶58