Partly allowed

The Depot Manager v. P.S. Williams

Telangana HC24 Nov 2014WP/1780/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Tribunal award that reinstated a workman after finding theft allegations unproven but constituted misconduct, the Court held that the Tribunal was entitled under Section 11-A discretion to reduce back wages. The Court modified the award by reducing the denial of back wages from 50% to 25% due to lack of monetary loss to the employer.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to deny only 25% of back wages instead of 50% for the period 2.4.2002 to 27.2.2008.

The Depot Manager Vs P.S. Williams — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1780 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The A.P.S.R.T.C ( for short, ‘the Corporation’) has filed this challenging the award dated 27.02.2008, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D.No.38 of 2005, wherein and whereby the Tribunal, exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), had modified the punishment of removal of the 1^st respondent-workman to that of reinstatement with 50% of back wages and with continuity of service.

¶5

The case as found by the Enquiry Officer is that on 06.11.2000, the 1^st respondent while working in Waltair Depot was charge sheeted for thieving two blocks of Rs.2.50 ps denomination tickets. On a complaint received on 03.11.2001 and 05.11.2001 about the missing of two blocks of tickets of Rs.2.50 ps bearing ticket Nos.554/990500599 and 554/993100-199 from the tray boxes of service Conductors. One Harikumar and J.R.G. Stenvenson made these complaints. When a check was conducted on the 1^st respondent, he was found with carrying those two blocks of tickets in his pockets. The charge sheet was issued and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed punishment of removal from service.

¶6

The 1^st respondent-workman filed I.D. No.38 of 2005 before the Tribunal under Section 2A(2) of the Act, challenging the order of removal of the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority. After its full trial and on appreciation of the evidence, the

¶7

Tribunal came to the conclusion and given benefit of doubt to the 1^st respondent and held that the allegation of theft has not been proved. However, considering the fact that the enquiry officer gave a finding to the effect that two ticket blocks were found in the pocket of the 1^st respondent and finding that he ought to have handed over the same immediately to the higher authorities or to the security guard, came to the conclusion that there was a misconduct on the part of the 1^st respondent. However, exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Act modified the punishment by directing reinstatement of the 1^st respondent with continuity of service while denying 50% as back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the Corporation.

¶8

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Lathkar, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and Sri Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and learned Government Pleader for the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

The charges framed against the 1^st respondent are:

¶10

“1) For having stolen the ticket blocks of Rs.2.50 ps den. Bearing No.554/990500-599 and 554/993100-199 from the tray boxes of your service conductors on 3.11.2001 and 5.11.2001 respectively which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

¶11

2) For having concealed the fact of possessing E-2 ticket blocks of Rs.2.50 ps den. In your pant pocket which were stolen from the tray boxes of your service conductor when asked by the 11-2001 AE(M)/Waltair and SHG/Waltair on 6.11.2001 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

¶12

A perusal of the award of the Tribunal would reveal that the Tribunal gave a benefit of doubt in favour of the 1^st respondent on the ground that there was no eye witness for the allegation of the theft

¶13

committed by the 1^st respondent. The reasoning of the Tribunal that there needs to be an eye witness for the offence of theft is totally unmeaning and illogical. The Tribunal is of the opinion that merely because of the Corporation had refrained to give a police complaint, had come to the conclusion that the 1^st respondent was not involved in the same ignoring the fact that the 1^st respondent was caught redhanded carrying the two bundles of the missing property that is two blocks of tickets. Giving of police complaint is not an essential requirement and cannot be a consideration to give a finding as to whether a delinquent employee was guilty in the disciplinary proceedings. The conclusions to be drawn in a domestic enquiry would be purely based on the material that is available on record, the evidence which has been brought before the enquiry officer and the conclusions that could be drawn on valuation of the material that was placed before the enquiry officer. In the present case the enquiry officer categorically found that on appreciation of material before him, the charges having been proved falling within the description of the misconduct as defined under the relevant regulations. The order of the Tribunal does not disclose any fresh enquiry having been conducted by the Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that the enquiry report is vitiated on one hand or the other. No witnesses were examined by the Tribunal independently to come to the conclusion that the enquiry report is vitiated requiring setting aside of the order of the disciplinary authority. In that view of the matter interference with the finding of the enquiry report and the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority by the Tribunal is unsustainable. However, there is a discretion with the Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Act to take into consideration of the gravity of the findings and modify the punishment in exercise of which the Tribunal had denied the back wages to the extent of 50%. Considering the fact that the 1^st respondent was only a driver and committing theft of two blocks of tickets would really no way have benefited to him and further there is a possibility that he resorted to this

¶14

act only to cause some annoyance and nuisance to the Conductors i.e., 1) Harikumar and 2) J.R.G. Stenvenson. In that view of the matter, as the case really has not resulted in any monitory loss to the Corporation and considering the fact that for a period of six years between 2.4.2002 to 27.2.2008 denial of the back wages was justified. However, in the facts of the case, the denial of the back wages to the extent of ¼ would be more appropriate as that itself would be a substantial some of money apart from the fact that the social stigma and the state of joblessness which he suffered is sufficient and deterrent for the 1^st respondent.

¶15

In the light of the discussion above, I am inclined to modify the punishment as denial of back wages to the extent of ¼ in the place of 50% for the period between 2.4.2002 to 27.2.2008.

¶16

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of conforming the remaining part of the Award of the Tribunal except as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶17

____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶18

Date:24.11.2014 Gk.

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.1780 OF 2009

¶21

Date:24.11.2014.

¶22

Gk.

The Depot Manager v. P.S. Williams

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager v. P.S. Williams

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

Sunkari Narsaiah Vs Kuna Anantham

Ch. Lakshmi Sujatha Vs The Osmania University

Smt. Farzana Begum Vs Smt. Raheema Bee

T. Vijaya Nirmala Vs The District Collector

Mr Kulkarni Manohar Rao Vs Mr Kuchi Saibaba

Duvvula Narender Vs Kammari Kistaiah