Petitioner challenging removal. High Court found Labour Court failed to record findings on evidence sufficiency. Pet wipesetition allowed; matter remanded for fresh disposal.
Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for fresh disposal.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No. 18867 of 2005
O R D E R:
In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is an Ex-Conductor of Karimnagar–II Depot of A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, is questioning the Award dt.21.7.2004 passed in ID No.72 of 2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, confirming the punishment of removal imposed on him by the Depot Manager-respondent herein.
2. A perusal of the impugned Award itself shows that eleven charges have been framed against the petitioner in the Domestic Enquiry. It is brought to my notice that the enquiry officer submitted a report to the effect that all the charges were proved and consequently, the respondent accepted the same and removed the petitioner from service.
3. A perusal of the impugned award would show that it merely contains the respective cases and contentions made by either side. The award does not show that the labour court has given any reasons and recorded the findings as to whether the evidence let in, in support of the charges is sufficient to hold them as proved. No findings are recorded. Charge No.2 relates to collection of a sum of Rs.4/- towards fare from a passenger and not issuing ticket to her and this is a serious charge. This has been denied by the petitioner. It is not necessary to go into the other details but the award does not contain any reasons with regard to validity of domestic enquiry or proof or otherwise of eleven charges in the domestic enquiry.
4. Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.State Road Transport Corporation pointed out that the petitioner has not questioned the validity of the domestic enquiry before the labour court and consequently, the removal order cannot be interfered with or the matter should not be remanded to the Labour Court. There is no force in this contention. It may be noted that merely because a domestic enquiry is not challenged or even if it is other wise held to be valid, the labour court does not loose its power or jurisdiction u/Sec.11-A of Industrial Disputes Act to examine the findings in the domestic enquiry and see whether they are consistent with the evidence or not. This exercise has not been done by the labour court.
5. Even with regard to validity of the domestic enquiry, the petitioner’s counsel submits that it was raised by the petitioner before the labour court, but the labour court did not decide the said aspect as a preliminary issue. In the above circumstances, it follows that the matter has to be remanded back to the labour court for fresh disposal.
6. It is true that the matter is of the year 2006 and more than six years have elapsed by now, but still having regard to the above situation, there is no alternative except to remand the matter to labour court for fresh consideration.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Labour
court shall expeditiously dispose of the matter as it is an old one. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
_______________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J
Dt. 05.12.2012 Mjl/*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in confirming removal without recording findings on the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner.
Whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to examine findings under Section 11-A even if the domestic enquiry was not challenged.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ex-Conductor of Karimnagar–II Depot of A.P.State Road Transport Corporation
Depot Manager
N.Ravi Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
