This writ petition challenged a Labour Court award that reinstated a conductor removed for fare irregularities but denied back wages. The High Court upheld the award, holding the penalty disproportionate and no legal error in denying back wages based on the departmental proceedings. The petition was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
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 Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Writ Petition No. 24370 of 1998
Dated: 19.04.2010
Between:
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Medak District. And
… Petitioner
M.Kistaiah and another
… Respondents
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Writ Petition No. 24370 of 1998
O R D E R :
The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation filed this writ petition seeking certiorari to call for the records relating to the award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad dated 02.07.1996 in I.D.No 10/1993 and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal.
The facts in brief are as under:
The 1st respondent herein, who was working as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’), was removed from service on 04.04.1992 on the allegations of cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent herein preferred I.D. No. 10/1993 under section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Though no evidence was adduced by him before the Labour Court, on behalf of the Corporation Exs.M.1 to M.18 documents were marked. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the charges against the 1st respondent herein were proved. However, the Labour Court while observing that having regard to the nature of the allegations, the extreme punishment of removal was not warranted, by award dated 02.07.1996 set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits but denied the back wages. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed by the Corporation.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently contended that in view of the fact that the 1st respondent did not challenge the validity of the domestic enquiry, and all the
charges were held proved even by the Labour Court, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the penalty of removal.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that the only allegation against the 1st respondent was that he failed to collect the fare from three individual passengers and also failed to close the S.R before starting the vehicle. It is not in dispute that no allegations of theft or misappropriation were made against the petitioner. In the circumstances, as rightly observed by the labour Court, the extreme punishment of removal was disproportionate to the gravity of charges framed against the 1st respondent. Hence, the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the penalty of removal and directing reinstatement in exercise of the discretionary power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act. It is also relevant to note that the entire back wages for the period during which the 1st respondent was out of service i.e. from 04.04.1992 till the date of passing of the award, were denied by the Labour Court observing that the conduct of the petitioner disentitled him to claim any back wages.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award, which did not suffer from any legal error warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
G. ROHINI, J
Date: 19.04.2010 KLP
______________
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court award denying back wages but allowing reinstatement of a conductor found guilty of fare irregularities.
Whether the Labour Court was justified in reinstating the employee despite the finding that the charges were proved.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Medak District
M. Kistaiah
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
