Disposed

D.. Apsrtc Nizamabad v. U.Srinivasa Rao and Others

Telangana HC20 Apr 2009WA/32/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of a writ appeal filed by APSRTC challenging a single Judge's order reinstating a conductor removed for alleged cash misappropriation. Upon party agreement, the court directed that the subsequent reinstatement proceedings be treated as a fresh appointment without back wages or continuity of service.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement proceedings dated 17.11.2008 treated as fresh appointment; no back wages or continuity of service.

D.. Apsrtc Nizamabad Vs U.Srinivasa Rao and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO : 32 of 2001

¶6

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26.6.2000 in W.P.No.1359 of 1998 on the file of the High Court.)

¶7

Between:

¶8

The APSRTC rep. By its Depot Manager, Nizamabad Depot, Nizamabad.

¶9

..... APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

1. U.Srinivasa Rao s/o.U.Chennakeswarlu aged about 38 years, Occ: Ex.Conductor, E.No.305462, r/o.H.No.5-2-43, Mudiraju Veedhi, Nizamabad District.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶13

2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Hyderabad.

¶14

…RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: MS. B.G.UMA DEVI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.LAKSHMI MANOHAR

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

¶19

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶20

The first respondent was appointed as Conductor in the appellant A.P.S.R.T.C. in the month of March, 1992 and for the short remittance of cash of Rs.280/- in the bus on 23.5.1992 charges were framed against him and the said charges were proved and therefore the first respondent was removed from service. Questioning the said order of removal, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.54 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and the Labour Court by award dated 1.3.1994 observed that the imposition of punishment does not deserve any leniency as the first respondent had the intention to misappropriate Rs.280/which belongs to the Corporation and accordingly the order of removal of the first respondent was upheld. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the first respondent filed W.P.No.1359 of 1998 and the learned

¶21

single Judge of this Court by order dated 26.6.2000 while upholding the enquiry conducted by the management and the findings arrived at by the Labour Court was inclined to interfere with the punishment by exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Act’) while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that the punishment of removal is too severe to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first respondent and the award of the Labour Court was modified setting aside the order of removal directing for reinstatement into service without back wages, but with continuity of service and connected consequential benefits and the first respondent also not entitled for any other benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant A.P.S.R.T.C filed the present writ appeal.

¶22

A Division Bench of this Court while admitting the writ appeal on 29.1.2001 stayed the operation of the order of the learned single Judge and thereafter by order dated 30.12.2004 directed the appellant to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act, in default the interim direction granted on 29.1.2001 shall stand vacated. Thus, the earlier order was modified. It is stated that the appellant had not paid the wages to the first respondent under Section 17-B of the Act and he was also not reinstated.

¶23

It is stated that instead of paying wages under

¶24

Section 17-B of the Act, the first respondent was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 17.11.2008.

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned single Judge in modifying the punishment is illegal and unsustainable and the punishment of removal imposed by the Corporation is just and reasonable as it was a case of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.280/- and therefore it cannot be said that the punishment of removal is disproportionate.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that there was no misappropriation of funds, but only delayed payment. However, the first respondent was already reinstated into service and therefore he is inclined to forego the back wages, wages under Section 17-B of the Act, as ordered by this Court, and continuity of service, if his reinstatement on 17.11.2008 is treated as fresh appointment.

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, on getting instructions, submits that the Corporation is willing for the said course.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of, as agreed between the parties, as follows:

¶29

The reinstatement of the first respondent by proceedings dated 17.11.2008 shall be treated as a fresh appointment.

¶30

The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No

¶31

order as to costs.

¶32

________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J.

¶33

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 20.4.2009 kpr

D.. Apsrtc Nizamabad v. U.Srinivasa Rao and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.. Apsrtc Nizamabad v. U.Srinivasa Rao and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Authorised officer Vs Mr.v.N.Subhash Chandra Bose

Krishna Bhoopal Vs District Consumer Forum

Achanta Ramanadham (Died) Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

Y.Raja Ramachandar, (A-1) Vs The Additional Public Prosecutor, in charge of CID Cases

Sri Krishna Devan Yadav Vs The Chief Election Commissioner of India

Sririco-Fabrics, Siripuram Handloom Weavers- Vs Katabattini Venkateswarlu