The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal preferred by APSRTC, confirming the writ petition's order that upheld the Labour Court's award reinstating the workman against removal for disciplinary alleged misconduct regarding ticket irregularities.
Confirmation of the writ order reinstating the workman with back wage continuity of service.
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT APPEAL No.466 OF 2009
JUDGMENT : ( Per Hon’ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther )
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
2
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In the disciplinary proceedings, altogether five charges were framed against him, which read as under:
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
3
his report holding that all the charges leveled against the respondentworkman were proved and, based on the same, he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 17.03.1994. Questioning the same, he preferred an Appeal before the appellate authority, the same was dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 18.07.1994 and the review preferred was also dismissed by the review authority vide its order dated 24.09.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No.70 of 1997, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence and the documents Exs.M-1 to M-19, marked on behalf of the writ petitioners-APSRTC, and referring to the proceedings in the domestic inquiry, allowed the I.D. by setting-aside the order of removal and directed the writ petitioners-APSRTC to reinstate the respondent-workman into service with full back wages and continuity of service.
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
4
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
5
Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal are based on record. The learned Single Judge is right in upholding the order of the Tribunal and dismissing the Writ Petition. There are no justifiable grounds to allow the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners-APSRTC and prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
workman are sustainable? If so, whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside?
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
6
charges leveled against the respondent-workman were not proved. Further, opining that the domestic inquiry was conducted in a mechanical manner, ignoring the explanation submitted by the respondent-workman, the Tribunal has allowed the I.D. by setting-aside the removal order, directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and back wages. As per the record, proceedings against the respondent-workman were initiated basing on the cash and tickets available at the time of check. Charge No.2 relates to the allegation that on ex-stages 4 to 4/3, having collected the requisite fare of Rs.0.75 p.s. from the passenger, failed to issue ticket to him. The allegation with regard to Charge No.3 is that the respondent-workman had failed to collect fare and issue tickets to two lady passengers, who were traveling from Charminar to Fathe Darwaza, ex-stages 4 to 4/3. With regard to Charge No.2, the respondent-workman had offered his explanation stating that the passenger covered by Charge No.2 boarded the bus when it was proceeding at Himmatpura, where there were speed-breakers, the passenger tendered only Rs.0.50 p.s. and when the respondentworkman was insisting for the remaining tender of Rs.0.25 p.s. to issue a ticket, the other lady passengers, who were covered under Charge No.3, also boarded the bus, and before the bus reaching one fare stage, a check was conducted. The statement given by the driver of the bus was marked as Ex.M-12 and it is in favour of the respondentworkman. As seen from the inquiry report, the explanation offered by the respondent-workman was not taken into consideration while imposing the penalty of removal from service. There is nothing to doubt that there were no speed-breakers at Himmatpura, where the first passenger is said to have been boarded the bus. The specific
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
7
explanation with regard to charge No.2 is that when the respondentworkman was insisting for payment of remaining Rs.0.25 p.s. for issuance of ticket, the passenger could not offer the required tender and, hence, he could not issue ticket for Rs.0.75 p.s. to the passenger. It is also a case that even the bus did not pass one fare stage by then. The explanation given by the respondent-workman is satisfactory and it is in conformity with the material on record. Valid reasons are assigned by the Tribunal in setting-aside the order of removal and ordering reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and back wages. Except charge Nos.2 and 3, there are no charges with regard to misappropriation of any amount by the respondent-workman. The order of the Tribunal is supported by reasons. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners-APSRTC, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Tribunal is based on evidence and record. No illegality was committed by the Tribunal in passing the award; no interference was warranted by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Viewing from any angle, there is nothing to hold that any of the findings, recorded by the learned Single Judge and the authorities concerned, are not based on record. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to take a different view. It is also pertinent to state that under Clause 15 of the letters patent, no interference is made, unless there is a patent irregularity. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. The points are answered accordingly.
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
8
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)
____________________________
(Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J)
Date: 27-04-2017
DSH
HACJ & Dr. SAJ WA_466_2009
9
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
AND
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
83
27042017
WRIT APPEAL No.466 OF 2009
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)
Date. 27-04-2017
DSH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charges leveled against the respondent-workman are sustainable and liable to be set-aside?
Whether the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is correct?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
APSRTC
Respondent-workman
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
SHAMEEM AKTHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
