Partly allowed

A.J.Nagaraja, v. Depot Manager

Telangana HC27 Jan 2014WP/12798/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award reinstating a driver with continuity of service but no back wages. The Court found the absence explanation unsatisfactory but modified the penalty, removing the 'cumulative effect' from withholding of three annual increments as disproportionately harsh.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal award confirmed except modification of penalty from withholding increments with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect.

A.J.Nagaraja, Vs Depot Manager — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

Writ Petition No.12798 of 2002

¶3

Date: 27-01-2014

¶4

Between

¶5

A.J.Nagaraja Depot Manager, Chittoor-I Depot, APSRTC, Chittoor; and 2 others

and

… Petitioner

… Respondents

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶10

Writ Petition No.12798 of 2002

¶11

Order:

¶12

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of certiorari to set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur (the Tribunal, for short), dated 05-9-2001 in I.D.No.19 of 1998 whereunder the

¶13

3^rd respondent-Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, without back wages and with the punishment of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶14

2. The petitioner was appointed as a driver by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation, for short) on 11-02-1986. From 25-12-1993, the petitioner was absent from duty. On the ground that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent, a charge-memo was issued to him. The petitioner was later subjected to domestic enquiry wherein it was found that the charges were proved. Consequently, the Corporation ordered the removal of the petitioner from service. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an administrative appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner consequently raised I.D.No.19 of 1998 before the 3^rd respondent-Tribunal. As already pointed out, the I.D., was partly allowed ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages and with a penalty of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not attend duty owing to suffering from jaundice but could furnish a Medical Certificate from a Private Medical Practitioner only. Assuming that the petitioner suffered from jaundice from 25-12-1993 till the date of his removal on 15-7-1994, he did not report for

¶16

duty. I therefore do not consider that the explanation offered by the petitioner was satisfactory. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not produce any Medical Certificate either before the Tribunal or before the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the absence of the petitioner from duty was for justifiable reasons cannot be sustained.

¶17

4. The learned Presiding Officer of the

¶18

3^rd respondent-Tribunal has considered the case on humanitarian grounds and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. However, where such a lenient view was taken on the ground that the petitioner had already suffered considerable period without job and had already ordered that the petitioner was not entitled to back wages, the imposition of the penalty of withholding of

¶19

3 annual increments with cumulative effect is highly disproportionate. It would be appropriate to order withholding of 3 annual increments without cumulative effect as penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part.

¶21

The award of the 3^rd respondent-Tribunal is confirmed except for the penalty of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect. Instead of the penalty

¶22

of withholding of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect, the petitioner is imposed the penalty of withholding of 3 annual increments without cumulative effect. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶23

_____________________ Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.

¶24

27^th January, 2014. Ak

¶25

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶26

120

¶27

Writ Petition No.12798 of 2002

¶28

27^th January, 2014. (Ak)

A.J.Nagaraja, v. Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.J.Nagaraja, v. Depot Manager

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

Abdul Samad, Vs Ediga Jayamma

K. China Satyanarayana Vs Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd., Govt. of India

Kongali Mopataiah Vs The State of A.P.

N.Narsimloo, Vs Bank of Baroda, (a Government of India Undertaking)

K.Pratap Reddy Vs The Superindent Engineer

The Depot Manager, Apstrc, Vs G. Padma Rao, E.334044