In this writ petition, the corporation challenged the Industrial Tribunal a excessive punishment. The court upheld the Tribunal's reduction of penalty to one year stoppage without cumulative effect and instructed suspension treated as duty.
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.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 17223 OF 2002
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks for a writ of Certiorari to set aside the award of the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam dated 5.3.2002 in I.D.No. 24 of 2001.
The second respondent was an employee working with the petitioner-Corporation as a Conductor. Alleging that the second respondent indulged himself in cash and ticket irregularities on 2.4.1990, a charge sheet was issued against the second respondent. The second respondent offered his explanation on 23.4.1990. A domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 8.8.1990 holding that the charges were proved against the second respondent. On 4.10.1990 final orders were passed imposing penalty of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The suspension period of the second respondent was treated
as not on duty. The second respondent was un-successful in his appeal and review petitions. The second respondent consequently raised I.D.No. 24 of 2001 before the first respondent. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal held that the charges were proved against the second respondent. However, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The suspension period was treated as on duty. Questioning the award, the present Writ Petition is laid.
The basic allegation is cash and ticket irregularities. The incident occurred way back in 1990. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and also to treat the period of suspension as not on duty. As rightly considered by the first respondent – Tribunal, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the second respondent. The Labour Court modified the punishment to deferment of one annual increment without cumulative effect with a direction to treat the period of suspension as on duty. I am satisfied that the penalty
imposed by the labour court modifying the order of the disciplinary authority is justified and does not deserve to be interfered with. I, therefore, see no merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.
______________________________ DR.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
DATE: 30.12.2013 KA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal a reasonable punishment reduced deferment of one annual increment without cumulative effect deserves to be interfered with.
Petitioner-Corporation
Second Respondent
Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam
K.G. Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
