This High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that reinstated a workman removed for financial irregularities. The Court held the Tribunal's finding that the domestic enquiry lacked sufficient material was not perverse.
The writ petition was dismissed without 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 SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15339 OF 2000
ORDER:
This writ petition is preferred by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narsampet, Warangal District, challenging the legality and validity of the award passed in I.D.No.175/1994 by the Industrial Triubnal-cum-Labour Court on 27.07.1998.
2. The first respondent/workman was initially appointed as a temporary conductor by the APSRTC in the year 1981. It was suspected that, he has altered the entries in the statistical return bearing No.4858489 dated 05.03.1993 with regard to Rs.2/- denomination and it was alleged that, ticket No.078/168 has been altered as 165 and the tickets issued column where 55 is recorded was also correspondingly altered to 52. The total number of passengers was also correspondingly reduced from 69 to 66 and hence it was suspected that three tickets of Rs.2/- denomination have been recycled by the petitioner. Inspite of the workman denying the charges, domestic enquiry has been ordered and by an order passed on 24.09.1993 by the Depot Manager, Narsampet, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred there against by the workman has been turned down by the Divisional Management, Warangal on 14.11.1994. Then the workman raised I.D.No.175/1994 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. The Labour Court by its award dated 27.07.1998 set-aside the order of removal dated 24.09.1993 and directed the APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and 50% of back wages. This award was published through G.O.Rt.No.1902 dated 28.10.1998, the workman has since been reinstated.
3. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned standing counsel for the writ petitioner.
4. Learned standing counsel would contend that the Labour Court having upheld that the domestic enquiry was conducted properly and validly ought not have sat over the same as an Appellate Authority. He would also contend that, the Corporation survives on the revenues secured by it through its operations of passenger buses and movement of freight and cargo. If the conductors of the buses were not to report the income properly and faithfully, the Corporation will suffer extreme financial distress.
5. However, it is a primary responsibility of the Corporation to bring home the charge laid against the respondent/workman. Before the domestic Enquiry Officer, one Sri K. Satyanarayana, Depot Superintendent (Traffic) has been examined. The statistical return where the alterations are said to have been made by the petitioner was also exhibited. However, Sri K. Satyanrayana is candid enough in stating that, the statistical return filed by the petitioner has been received by the Assistant Depot Clerk but not by him on the relevant day. Therefore, the fundamental fact that is required to be established before the Enquiry Officer was whether the alterations found in the statistical return concerned have been made prior to the workman handing over the same to the Assistant Depot Clerk. Therefore, the Assistant Depot Clerk should have been examined. It should also have been brought on record as to how much cash has been deposited by the workman while depositing the S.R. That would have clinched the issue as to whether the cash handed over by the workman is commensurate with the alterations noticed in the statistical return or otherwise. Unfortunately, the ADC was not examined and the cash remittance made by the workman for the day in question has not been
demonstrated with regard to the records required to be maintained in that respect. Hence, the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the oral statements of Sri K. Satyanarayana that the entries in the statistical return had been altered by the petitioner as not corroborated. This view taken by the Labour Court, is incapable of being called as perverse or an unjust finding. When the statistical return in question has not been handed over to Sri K. Satyanarayana by the workman concerned, the possibility of corrections being made there, after it was delivered to ADC cannot be completely ruled out. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal and consequently the conclusion it has reached, that the order of punishment of removal from service is not based upon valid or tenable material appears to be a reasonable view in the matter.
6. Hence, I do not see any justifiable reason to upset the same. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, but however without costs.
________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
September 06, 2012 sp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Industrial Tribunal's award setting aside a removal order due to insufficient corroboration in the domestic enquiry.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal's finding that the punishment order was not based on valid material is a reasonable view and not perverse.
Whether the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award in an industrial dispute has merit.
Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narsampet
Workman
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
