Partly allowed

The Depot Manager, v. B.Nagesh

Telangana HC2 Feb 2010WP/2319/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition in part, modifying the Labour Court award to limit back wages to 50% since the reinstated driver did not render service during the period of removal and the original findings were unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court Award is confirmed in all respects except the quantum of back wages, which is limited to 50% of the total awarded.

The Depot Manager, Vs B.Nagesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2319 OF 2004

¶3

DATED 2^nd FEBRUARY, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bheemgal Depot, Nizamabad District. … Petitioner A n d B.Nagesh, and another.

¶5

… Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.2319 OF 2004

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The Award dated 25.04.2003 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.107 of 2000 is challenged by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the APSRTC’), Bheemgal Depot, Nizamabad District. By the said Award, the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to reinstate the first respondent-Driver in service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits.

¶10

By interim order dated 10.02.2004, this Court while recording the fact that the first respondent-Driver had been reinstated in service pursuant to the impugned Award, directed the APSRTC to deposit 50% of the back wages awarded by the Labour Court. Thereafter, by order dated 04.08.2004 this Court permitted the first respondent-Driver to withdraw the amount so deposited without furnishing security.

¶11

The first respondent herein was appointed as a Driver in the APSRTC on 15.04.1996 and his services as such were regularized on 25.10.1997. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with an accident which occurred on 04.08.1998 involving the bus driven by him. Owing to the said accident, the three occupants of the Jeep, which was the other vehicle involved in the accident, died

¶12

on the spot and one occupant died on the way to the hospital. Five other passengers in the Jeep sustained injuries.

¶13

Dissatisfied with the first respondent’s explanation dated 12.10.1998 to the charge sheet dated 07.10.1998, the APSRTC initiated a domestic enquiry into the matter. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 23.03.1999, the APSRTC removed the first respondent from service. His appeal against the said order of removal was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.107 of 2000.

¶14

The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer against the first respondent-Driver were based on mere surmises and were not supported by any acceptable evidence. The Labour Court accordingly concluded that the said findings were perverse in nature and that the disciplinary action taken against the first respondent-Driver based on such findings was unsustainable. Consequently, the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to reinstate the first respondent-Driver in service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits.

¶15

Aggrieved thereby, the APSRTC filed the present writ petition.

¶16

Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, contended that the adverse conclusion of the Labour Court against the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry is not borne out by the record. According to the learned counsel, the material on record clearly indicates the culpability of the first respondent-Driver in so far as the accident is concerned. The learned counsel also argued that the grant of full back wages by the Labour Court was unsustainable on facts.

¶17

The established facts reflect that the Jeep coming from the opposite direction collided with the right rear side of the bus. The Labour Court, upon considering the material on record including the statements made by the passengers of the bus supporting the driver, came to the conclusion that there was no material to support the inference that the accident took place because of the rash, negligent and careless driving of the first respondent. It is on this basis that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and that the punishment imposed upon the first respondent, basing on such findings, was unsustainable. To this extent, the Award of the Labour Court does not brook any interference.

¶18

However, so far as the aspect of back wages is concerned, it is relevant to note that there is no discussion whatsoever in the Award as to why the Labour Court granted full back wages. The grant of back wages is no longer considered to be an automatic or inevitable consequence of a direction of reinstatement. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in J.K.SYNTHETICS LIMITED V/s. K.P.AGRAWAL^[1] , the Labour Court is required to examine the entitlement of a workman to back wages and the grant of back wages cannot be mechanical. In the present case, the first respondent-Driver was removed from service on 23.03.1999 and it was only pursuant to the Award dated 25.04.2003 that he was reinstated. It is no doubt true that the removal of the first respondent-Driver from service based on the perverse findings recorded in the enquiry is unsustainable in law, but the fact also remains that he did not render any actual service to the APSRTC during the period that he remained out of its employment. In such circumstances, he would not be entitled to full back wages merely because of the illegality in his removal from service.

¶19

In the light of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case and keeping in mind the fact that 50% of the back wages has already

¶20

been withdrawn by the first respondent-Driver, I deem it fit and proper to limit the entitlement of the first respondent-Driver to 50% of the back wages payable for the period that he remained out of the service of the APSRTC, which has already been withdrawn by him. The Award under challenge is accordingly modified to that extent and shall stand confirmed in all other respects.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No costs.

¶22

SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶23

2^nd FEBRUARY, 2010

¶24

PGS

¶25

[1] (2007) 2 SCC 433

The Depot Manager, v. B.Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager, v. B.Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Santosh Vidyaniketan High School, Bhongir, Nalgonda Vs The Government of a.P., rep.by its Secretary, School

Guthi Nageswara Rao, S/o.Muni Ramachandra Naidu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

U.R. Krishna, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court

A.P.Dairy Development Co.op.Federation Ltd., Vs The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

A.P.Dairy Development Co-op.Federation Ltd. Vs The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-

A.P. Dairy Development Co-op. Federation Ltd, Vs The Additional Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court