Allowed

D.v.Reddy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.

Telangana HC29 Jul 2011WP/13892/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an impugned labour court award reinstating a conductor afresh. It quashed the rejection of the first charge for violating natural justice on record evidence but upheld the second charge. The Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits for terminal benefits only, without back wages, noting the nature of the judicial pressure.

What did the court decide?

Modifying the impugned award to reinstate petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits for terminal benefits, without back wages.

D.v.Reddy Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.NO.13892 OF 2003

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

Heard both the counsel.

¶5

2. Aggrieved by the award dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Labour Court – III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.138/1998, in reinstating the petitioner who was working as conductor in the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation into service afresh, without back wages and continuity of service, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶6

3. The petitioner joined in service on 13.3.1983 as conductor and on 11.2.1993, while he was conducting the bus No.1267 on the route Mahaboobnagar to Manyamkonda, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage no.3 at 8.15 hours and in the said check cash and ticket irregularities were alleged against the petitioner and not being satisfied with his explanation, the following charges were framed:

¶7

1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘issue and start’ which constitutes misconduct under regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

¶8

2. For having re-issued the five (5) tickets being nos.110/074461 to 464 and 465 of Rs.5/- denomination to five individual passengers boarded your bus at Mahaboobnagar and bound for Manyamkonda ex-stages 4 to 1, these above tickets you have already sold in your S.R. in your previous trip on 10-02-1993 as you have already collected Rs.5/- from each passenger at the boarding point itself and re-issued the above tickets, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

¶9

4. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted report on 9.6.1993 holding the petitioner guilty of the above charges. The petitioner offered his explanation to the show cause notice and not being satisfied with the same, he was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service and the appeal and the review filed by him ended in rejection vide proceedings dated 21.8.1993 and 2.3.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised industrial dispute and by the impugned award, the order of

¶10

removal was modified to that of reinstatement of the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. Assailing the award of the Tribunal in denying back wages and continuity of service, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶11

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record. He stated that in respect of first charge, the petitioner has categorically stated that he did not violate the rule ‘issue and start’, but without considering the same, the enquiry officer found him guilty and the Tribunal did not consider the said issue at all and this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. He stated that with regard to second charge, the amount involved in paltry and the passengers who are in drunken condition have shown the old tickets, which the petitioner has not given at all and there is no pecuniary loss to the Corporation and without considering these aspects, the enquiry officer and the Tribunal erroneously found the petitioner guilty of the second charge and the same is liable to be set aside. He stated that the petitioner is at the fag end of retirement and if he is denied past service at least for terminal benefits, he will be put to irreparable loss. With these submissions, he sought to grant the continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the petitioner.

¶12

6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation Sri Sunil Kumar Reddy, supporting the impugned award, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶13

7. The first charge against the petitioner is his failure to follow the rule ‘issue and start’. The petitioner has categorically denied this charge. The Tribunal has not dealt with this charge at all. When the petitioner has categorically denied this charge, the Tribunal, ought to have examined the material evidence to see whether the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are based on evidence. This exercise has not been done by the Tribunal and the averment of the petitioner remained unanswered. This amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶14

8. Coming to the second charge, it is alleged that the petitioner reissued the tickets which have already been issued in the earlier trip. Though the petitioner has taken the stand that the passengers were in

¶15

drunken state and out of fear they produced old tickets, the said explanation has not been accepted by the Tribunal, for the reason that the petitioner himself admitted in his spot explanation, that he might have issued the tickets under charge, erroneously and further he failed to prove the bona fides for issuance of tickets erroneously. Considering the material evidence on record, the Tribunal confirmed the findings of the enquiry officer on this charge. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding.

¶16

9. Out of the two charges, the Tribunal appreciating the material evidence on record, found the petitioner guilty for the second charge and in respect of first charge, as already noted above, it has not adverted the contention of the petitioner and did not examine the material evidence on record and this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶17

10. The case of the petitioner is that he was aged fifty years as on the date of filing of the writ petition and presently, he is at the fag end of retirement. He stated that he has no source of income and have no properties and was not gainfully employed during the period of out of employment. The Tribunal has also considered these aspects, but for denying the back wages and other attendant benefits, it has not given any reasons, and thus there is no sufficient reasoning for not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶18

11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award of the Tribunal in grating reinstatement afresh, is modified to the effect that the respondent – Corporation shall reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, without any back wages. The continuity of service with attendant benefits, shall be calculated for the purpose of terminal benefits.

¶19

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶20

AVS ---------------------------29—07—2011

D.v.Reddy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.v.Reddy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.

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

K. Guravaiah Vs The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Nammi Venkata Rao (Hindu) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kurra Renukamma Vs Somanthala Chinna Seshu Reddy

The District Malaria Officer, Vs K. Yadagiri

Mandadi Suseela Vs Madras Fertilizers Limited

The Dist.Malaria officer, Vs Sir Biksham