The High Court directed the corporation to grant the petitioner continuity of service without back wages for regularization of his casual service that the Labour Court overlooked.
Directed the respondents to consider the request for continuity of service without back wages by virtue of the regularization proceedings of 1.8.1998.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No. 24911 of 2003.
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Award dt. 15.5.2003 in I.D.No. 135 of 2000 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad whereby the petitioner was denied continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.
The petitioner joined the 2nd respondent Corporation as a Conductor on 11.3.1997 and while he was conducting the bus on 30.10.1998 on the route Badepahad—Varni, a check was conducted by the Checking Officials and found that a sum of Rs. 24/- was collected by the petitioner from six passengers who boarded the bus at Badepahad and were travelling to Varni but he did not issue tickets to them and on seeking the Checking Officials, the petitioner pulled out five tickets of Rs. 4/denomination and gave them to five passengers and that he also failed to close the S.R. at stage No. 10 for Rs. 4/- denomination and that on the report given by the Checking Officials, the 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet dt. 10.11.1998 by framing two charges, to which, the petitioner submitted explanation on 5.12.1998 and that not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, a regular Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by appointing the Chief Inspector, Enquiries, R.M. Office, Nizamabad as the Enquiry Officer, who after completing the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report on 1.3.1999 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice to explain as to why he should
not be removed from service but the petitioner did not give any explanation and subsequently, by the order dt. 13.5.1995, the petitioner was removed from service. Against the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Traffic Manager who dismissed the appeal confirming the order of removal. Against the orders of the Deputy Traffic Manager, the petitioner filed I.D.No. 135 of 2000 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By the Award dt. 15.5.2003, the Labour Court-II partly allowed the dispute and ordered the petitioner to be appointed as fresh conductor on daily wages and negatived the continuity of service and back wages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner filed additional affidavit dt. 29.3.2010 wherein he stated that inadvertently he could not mention certain facts in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He stated that he joined the service in the 2nd respondent Corporation on 11.3.1997 as a casual Conductor and his services are regularized with effect from 1.8.1998 vide Proceedings No. E1/255/(5)/98:RM:NZB dt. 26.10.1998 issued by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad. In support of the additional affidavit, the petitioner also filed a copy of the above proceedings.
Though sufficient time was granted to the 2nd respondent to file reply affidavit to the additional affidavit, the 2nd respondent did not file reply affidavit.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court passed the impugned Award without properly appreciating the evidence on record and also without properly dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is further contended that though the services of the petitioner were
regularized with effect from 01.08.1998 by the Regional Manager, APSTRC, Nizaamabad, the learned Labour Court proceeded presuming that the petitioner was working on daily wages and taking into consideration the said fact, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service afresh on daily wages without granting continuity of service and back wages.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, gave a finding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to ticket irregularities are perverse and consequently held the petitioner violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ and holding that the punishment of removal imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved and proceeding on the assumption that the petitioner was still working on daily wages, the Labour Court ordered the petitioner to be reinstated into service afresh on daily wages in the prevailing scale of pay applicable to the daily wage Conductors. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the Labour Court was under the impression that the services of the petitioner were not regularized and he was still working on daily wages, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to be appointed as a Conductor afresh on daily wages and had the Tribunal considered the case of the petitioner bearing in mind that the services of the petitioner were regularized, the order of the Labour Court would have been different and since the respondent Corporation did not deny the fact that the services of the petitioner were regularized by filing reply affidavit to the additional affidavit, he prays this Court to allow the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow[1]
wherein the Supreme Court held that when the order of termination of employee’s service was held to be illegal, granting of reinstatement with back wages is the normal relief and to deny the said normal relief, the employer has to plead special circumstances, if any.
I have perused the copy of the Proceedings No. E1/255/(5)/98:RM:NZB dt. 26.10.1998 issued by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad. By the above said proceedings, 35 Conductors who were working on daily wages have been decasualised and the Depot Managers of Nizamabad Region are requested to issue appointment orders to the candidates whos names are mentioned in the proceedings. In the said proceedings, the name of the petitioner is shown at S.No. 10 and his services were decasualised with effect from 1.08.1998. The respondent Corporation did not dispute the Proceedings of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad by filing any reply affidavit. The Counsel for the respondent Corporation has not strongly opposed the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the factum of regularization of services of the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court before passing Award in question.
Having regard to the fact that the services of the petitioner were regularized was not brought to the notice of Labour Court before passing the Award in question and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was found to have violated the rule “Issue and Start” which is minor in nature and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court (cited supra), the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for granting continuity of service but without back wages and other attendant benefits, by virtue of the Proceedings No. E1/255/(5)/98:RM:NZB dt. 26.10.1998 issued by the Regional
Manager, Nizamabad.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall no order as to costs.
G.CHANDRAIAH,J 19.04.2010. krb.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No. 24911 of 2003.
Dt. 19.04.2010.
[1] 2001-I-LLJ 701
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and back wages after regularization of casual service which was not initially brought to the notice of the Labour Court.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages and attendant benefits in view of the violation of the 'Issue and Start' rule.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal, LucknowExplained¶12
Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow [1]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
2nd Respondent Corporation
G. Chandrachiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
