Dismissed

R. Malla Reddy, v. The Honble Industrial Tribnal-cum- Labour Court

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012WP/21897/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice N. Ravi Shankar dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash an impugned award confirming the petitioner's removal for unauthorized absence. The court held that the petitioner lost his job due to personal negligence, as he neither attended the inquiry nor specifically pleaded non-service of notices in prior departmental proceedings, thereby waiving the argument.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs awarded to either party.

R. Malla Reddy, Vs The Honble Industrial… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 21897 OF 2001

¶5

Between:

¶6

R. Malla Reddy … Petitioner V/s. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar district & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Ravi Mohan Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Labour for R-1 Sri K.Srinivasa Rao SC for APSRTC R-2

¶8

The Court made the following : [order follows]

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 21897 OF 2001

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, the learned standing counsel for APSRTC [for short ‘Corporation’].

¶13

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the award dated 3-3-1981 passed in I.D.No. 87 of 1998 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-

¶14

Labour Court, Godavarikhani confirming his removal from service.

¶15

3. The petitioner earlier worked as conductor in the Corporation

¶16

Depot at Koratla in Karimnagar district. By an order dated 20-12-1996, the second respondent removed the petitioner from service on a charge of unauthorized absence from 01-8-1996 to 30-8-1996. On the said charge a domestic inquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 02-12-1996 to the second respondent concluding that the said charge is proved and the same was accepted by the second respondent. The said report reads that the petitioner did not report for duty even till the date of said inquiry report i.e., 02-12-1996. The enquiry was an exparte one as the petitioner failed to attend it.

¶17

4. The inquiry report shows that the Enquiry Officer sent notices twice but they were returned back by postal authority concerned on the ground that the petitioner was not available at the address given.

¶18

The first notice is dated 25-9-1996 and the second notice is dated 24-10-1996, which were sent by the Enquiry Officer to inform the petitioner about the dates of the inquiry. Both notices were sent by registered post and they were returned unserved on the above ground. The Inquiry report further reads thereafter copies of both the notices were exhibited on the notice board of the traffic section of the second report depot for seven days as required and despite the same, as the petitioner did not turn up for inquiry the above process was held to be sufficient service. Subsequently the Enquiry Officer basing on the evidence of the concerned witness of the RTC submitted his report dated 02-12-1996 observing that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorized absence covered by the charge.

¶19

5. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on 27/7/1998 before the concerned appellate authority with a delay of 1 ½ years. The appellate authority, dismissed it by its order dated 24-9-1998.

¶20

6. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the present I.D.No. 87 of 1998. The Labour Court considered that matter and it has by the present impugned award upheld the order of removal and also the punishment.

¶21

7. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the Labour Court in its award did not discuss justifiability of charge, merits of the case, the plea of the petitioner that he was not served with notice of domestic inquiry and it also did not consider

¶22

the proportionality of the punishment and therefore the award should be set aside or in any event the matter should be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh disposal after considering the above aspects. In support of his contention, he also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 048-2011 which is of myself given in WP.No. 19463 of 2002 and urged that the reasons on which that matter was remanded are equally applicable here and consequently the matter should be remanded. I have seen the said judgment. That matter also pertains to the case of a conductor, who was removed from service on certain charges. He contested the matter in the domestic inquiry as well as in the appeal. The authorities concerned considered his case but rejected the same. The Labour Court however did not consider the merits of that case, the plea of the petitioner therein on merits, and also the punishment aspect and the Labour Court passed an order confirming the removal and punishment without going into the above aspects. It was in that context, the matter was remanded. The present case is different.

¶23

8. It may be noted that in the present case, the petitioner did not appear in the inquiry at all and two inquiry notices which were sent to him were returned unserved on the ground that he was not available. The notices were sent to last known address given by himself to the corporation. Thereafter the notices were affixed or pasted on the notice board for seven days and the Enquiry Officer was then constrained to consider the evidence and give the report holding that the charge has been

¶24

proved.

¶25

9. It should now be noted here that after the removal order was

¶26

passed, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 06-7-1998 to the second respondent requesting for a copy of the removal order to file appeal. In that letter also the petitioner did not complain about non-service of notice on him and he merely requested that he was earlier sick and he is now ready to work and therefore he should be furnished with a copy of the removal order to file appeal. The order of the appellate authority would show that the petitioner did not urge before it that he was not served with the notice of

¶27

inquiry.

¶28

10. When specifically asked about the above lapse, Sri G. Ravi

¶29

Mohan pleaded that petitioner mentioned about the want of service of notice in his application under section 2-A (2) of the Act. I have seen the said original application in I.D.No. 87 of 1998, which is found in the record, received from the Labour Court. The petitioner has not specifically stated about non-service of notice regarding the departmental inquiry. Sri G.Ravi Mohan however pointed out that such a plea can be said to have been taken impliedly having regard to the averment in para 6 of the said application. Para No. 6 only shows that Enquiry Officer conducted inquiry very much knowing that the petitioner was taking treatment and therefore the inquiry conducted is not valid in the eye of law and the entire proceedings of the inquiry are void, abinitio and invalid. This averment to be

¶30

precise suggests that the Enquiry Officer also knew about the sickness of the petitioner but hurriedly conducted the enquiry. This plea was not taken in the appeal and no material was placed before the Labour court also to prove the said aspect. It may be noted that the Enquiry Officer commenced the inquiry some time prior to 25-9-1996 after charge was framed. He sent one inquiry notice dated 25-9-1996 and another on 24-10-1996 and can be said to have fixed the dates of inquiry reasonably with sufficient gap. This itself shows that the Enquiry Officer has taken proper care in conducting inquiry but the petitioner did not choose to care for the inquiry.

¶31

11. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has specifically pleaded about non-service of notice at any time previously and it is only in this writ petition and in the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel I find that such a plea is taken. In these circumstances, there is no need for remand and the Labour Court in substance considered the above aspects and concluded against the petitioner. This is a clear case where the petitioner lost his job because of his own negligence for his unauthorized absence from 01-8-1996 to 29-8-1996 and in not attending the enquiry and as pointed out by Corporation Counsel even after service of charge sheet. Such persons cannot be shown indulgence in the above circumstances. The Labour Court can be said to have considered the matter with regard to unauthorized absence and the conduct of the petitioner as borne out by record and the punishment awarded can said to be proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶32

12. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is

¶33

dismissed. No costs.

¶34

----------------------------------------JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR.

¶35

07-12-2012 I s L

¶36

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶37

WRIT PETITION No. 21897 OF 2001

¶38

Circulation No. Date:26/11/2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

R. Malla Reddy, v. The Honble Industrial Tribnal-cum- Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Malla Reddy, v. The Honble Industrial Tribnal-cum- Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appala Konda, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

L. Bhoopathi Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager

Md.Rafiq, Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Deputy Executive

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development

Y.Padmanabh Shastri Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Smt. D. Ramya Vs Vijay Charan Rao