Dismissed

Apsrtc, v. S.S. Narayana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2014WA/1439/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Labour Court award in service dispute. Bench dismissed appeal endorsing Single Judge view that domestic enquiry was vitiated, finding adverse inference against employee due to employer's failure to produce colleague's statement.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed, maintaining Labour Court award of reinstatement with 50% backwages but excluding full continuity of service.

Apsrtc, Vs S.S. Narayana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

W.A.No.1439 of 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶4

This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 03.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23320 of 2006.

¶5

The facts in brief are that the 1^st respondent herein was appointed as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1977 and by the year 1992, he was working in the Dilsukhnagar Depot. He was entrusted with the task of issuing bus passes. A charge sheet was issued to him on 03.09.1992 alleging that though he sold 10 bus passes Rs.110/- each on 09.03.1992, he did not remit the sale proceeds, being Rs.1100/- even by 01.04.1992 and that the same amounts to misconduct. The other subsidiary charges were also framed. The 1^st respondent submitted his explanation, stating that the bus passes were issued to one Mr.K.Jamalullah, Assistant Depot Clerk (ADC) and the sale proceeds were required to be remitted by that very ADC and that he cannot be held liable. Not satisfied with the explanation, the appellant conducted a departmental enquiry. Ultimately, through the order, dated 16.04.1993 passed by the appellant, the 1^st respondent was removed from service.

¶6

After exhausting departmental remedies of appeal and review, the 1^st respondent filed I.D.No.160 of 2001 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Through its

¶7

award, dated 23.12.2004, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 50% backwages. Attendant benefits, however, were denied. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the said award. Learned Single Judge dismissed the same. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

The charges framed against the 1^st respondent are as under:

¶9

1. For having failed to remit the sale proceeds of the ticket Nos.66940 to 66949 of Rs.110/denomination on the date of sale itself having sold them on 09.03.1992 but he made good the amount of Rs.1100/on 1-4-1992 which tantamounts to misappropriation of Corporation money.

¶10

2. For having failed to produce ticket Nos.66949 to 66949 of Rs.110/- denomination to checking officials on 17-3-1992 or furnish the remittance particulars for the sale of the above tickets which were handed over to him by Sri K.Jamalullah, E.20968, Asst. Depot Clerk on 7-3-1992.

¶11

3. For having concealed the facts by stating that he had lost ticket Nos.66940 to 66949 of Rs.110/- denomination tickets but on verification it was detected that the said tickets have been sold on 9-3-1992 by him.

¶12

After conducting departmental enquiry, the appellant removed the 1^st respondent from service. Challenging the order of removal, the 1^st respondent filed I.D.No.160 of 2001 before the Labour Court. A finding was recorded to the effect that the domestic enquiry is vitiated. Therefore, evidence was recorded by the Labour Court itself. The 1^st respondent deposed as W.W.1 and he filed Exs.W.1 to W.7. On behalf of the appellant, M.W.1 and M.W.2 were

¶13

examined and Exs.M.1 to M.9 were filed. The nature of disposal given by the Labour Court has already been indicated.

¶14

A detailed discussion was undertaken by the Labour Court with reference to each and every charge. It was observed that 10 bus passes of Rs.110/- each in question were issued in the name of K.Jamalullah and that the same was entered in the way bill, dated 07.03.1992. K.Jamalullah in turn handed over the bus passes to the 1^st respondent. The tickets were sold on 07.03.1992. The explanation offered by the 1^st respondent was that since K.Jamalullah handed over the tickets to him, the remittance of the sale proceeds is also required to be done by that very person. Though the statement of K.Jamalullah was also recorded in the course of enquiry, the appellant did not make the same as part of the record either before the enquiry officer or before t h e Labourt Court. Therefore, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn to the effect that it was the duty of that gentleman to remit the amount after collecting it from the 1^st respondent. The minor lapse on the part of the 1^st respondent was taken note of and the substantial relief in the form of 50% backwages and continuity of service was denied to him. Learned Single Judge did not find any serious error in the award passed by the Labour Court. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶15

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶17

______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶18

Date: 07.11.2014 JSU

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶20

W.A.No.1439 of 2014

¶21

Date: 07.11.2014

¶22

JSU

Apsrtc, v. S.S. Narayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc, v. S.S. Narayana

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

B. Shiva Shanker Prasad Vs Andhra Pradesh Genco,Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr.G.Venkateshwara Rao, Vs A.P. Genco, Vidyuth Soudha

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Davy Mckee [London] Ltd.

R. Srinivasa Setty, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

N. Ravi Kumar, Vs The General Manager

G. Kanaka Valli Kumari, Vs K.S.Jawahar reddy