Dismissed

The Depot Manager v. a.Sankar

Telangana HC22 Jul 2022WA/416/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Appeal against a Tribunal order affirming punishment without an enquiry, the High Court rejected the appellant's delay plea as it depended on missing conciliation records. Upholding the Single Judge's finding of no laches, the Court dismissed the appeal noting the live nature of the claim and lack of error in law.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed and costs of Rs. 5,000 awarded to the respondent.

The Depot Manager Vs a.Sankar — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

|³²⁷⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANE TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE^{MRSJUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL^{No:4160F 2020}

¶7

Writ Appeal under^{clause15 of the Letters Patent preferred againstthe Order Dated} tiostVblg in W.P.^{No. 2053 of 2010 on the file of the Highcourt'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

(Now TSRTC), Karimnagar-l^DePot' The DePot Manager,^APSRTC Karimnagar^District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

A.Sankar.Driver,S/o.A.Venkataiah,E-318845,agedabout55years.Driver, ipEriit t^il lj* tslf^{c j. R/o'"K;|.r";;s; i r- oe poi Kari m nasa r- Di stri ct}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶14

lA NO: 4 OF²⁰²⁰

¶15

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of tne peiition,the Higlr Court may be pleasedto} ;;p;; th; "peration^{dt tn" jros,"'t} T111 '.1^{Wp ruozosaof 2010dated} 12t}gl2}1g,^{pendingdisposal of the WRIT APPEAL}

¶16

Counsel for^{the Appellant: SRl. A'RAVI BABU (SC FOR TSRTC)}

¶17

Counsel forthe^{Respondent:SRl. P.GOVINDA RAJULU}

¶18

The Gourt made^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶19

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI,:I}H]JYAN

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HONCURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPAI,I,I NANDA

¶22

WRIT APPEAL No.416 of 2O2O

¶23

JUDGMENTi (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice uljal Bh 4tan)

¶24

Heard \4r. A.Ravi Babu, learned coun:el lbr the appellant and Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned cot nsel for the respondent.

¶25

Ap rellant before us is the Depot Ir[:rnager of Telangana Sta te Road Transport Corporation, Kr :rimnagar-l Depot.

¶26

The appea-l has been preferred agains't, tht: final order dated 12 09.2Ol9 passed by the learned Si.r6rle^,Judge allowing the trIrit Petition^{No.2O53 of 2010 fil-'cl by the} respondent wor kman.

¶27

4 . At t he relevant point of time,^{resporLdent was} working as a driver in the establishment^{of the appellant'} On 21.09,199€ respondent^{was charge sheetej b5' the}

¶28

2 HCJ & SNJ W.A.No.416 of 2020

¶29

appellant on the ground that because of his negtigence and lack of anticipation, the vehicle which was being driven by him met with an accident causing injury to a boy. It appea-rs that respondent did not respond to the charge sheet. Appellant thereafter passed order dated 24.ll.lggg imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year which would have cumulative effect. Appeal filed by the respondent was rejected and the penalty was affirmed. It further appea-rs that respondent pursued his matter with the Workers Union who made a complaint before the concerned Conciliation Officer. However, attempted conciliation failed whereafter Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. Appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani uide reference order dated O7.02.2007. The same was registered as Industrial Dispute No.4 of 2007. Industrial Tribunal by the Award dated 2O.12.2OO7 alfiruned the penalty imposed on the respondent. Thereafter the related writ petition came to be filed.

¶30

3 IIC-I & SNJ W.A No.4l6 of 2O2O

¶31

Learned Single Judge noted that the^penalty imposed wa; a major penalty, but the same^{,,rils imposed} without con lucting a domestic enquiry.^{Rel'ring upon a} decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant^{Singh Gill v.} State of Pur^jabt, learned Single Judge^{set asirle the award} as well as -he punishment imposed on the^respondent holding tha t respondent would be entil led to all consequentia I benefits.

¶32

In the appeal before us, it is srrbmir-ted^by learned coun:el lbr the appellant that there wes enormous delay of sever years by the respondent and on tlre gr,tund of delay, claim < f the respondent was rightly dism ssed by the Industrial Tri runal. Learned Single Judge was :^{(:)t jrrstified} 1n overlookin 1 this aspect. In this connecti rr:, he has referred to an order passed by this Court on 03.CU.2021.

¶33

t 1991 Supplemr nt 1 SCC 5O4

¶34

4 HC] & SNJ W.A.No-416 of 2O2O

¶35

6.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Departmentz.

¶36

However, Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and contends that no interference is called for.

¶37

B. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the materials on record.

¶38

This Court by order dated O3.OB.2O2t had called upon learned counsel for the parties to submit list of dates and events to examine the appeal, more so in the context of the contention of the appellant that there was delay and laches on the part of the respondent. It is submitted that appellant has thereafter filed a memo dated 19.07.2022 furnishing the list of events, which we have perused.

¶39

The incident in question took place on 29.12.1997. Charge sheet was submitted nine (09) months

¶40

, (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases I

¶41

IT(' & SNJ W.A.No.4l ti of 2O2O

¶42

thereafter orr 21.09.1998 and punishment war. imfrosed on 24.11.1998. Departmental appeal^{waspreft .-:-ed} by^the respondent on 25.01.2000 which was dismissed^on 19.06.20OO. A review petition was liled by tht: resoondent which u,as r^jected on 12.10.20O1. Thereaftel , as per the list of events filed by the appellant, reference v,as made by the appropri rte Government under Section lt)(i)(c) of the Industrial Di ;putes Act, 1947 to the Industrial^'ll'ibrrnal on 07.O2.2OO7. We find that the list of dates is irr:rrmclete in as much ar prior to making of a refererrce by the appropriate C overnment to the Industrial Tribunirl there is conciliation p roceedings before the Conciliation t.)fficer. If conciliation :ror:eedings fail, the Conciliat on Officer submits failur e report to the Government. Bas:d or:r such report, the ap propriate Government takes a decision either to make a r( ference or not to make a referr:nce under Section 1O(i)(c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 79,-'7 .^'t'he list of dates is si ent as regards the conciliation l,roceedings which is arr inl egra-l part of settlement of industrirrl dispute.

¶43

6 HCJ & SNJ W.A.No.416 of 2O20

¶44

We have a case of an individual workman who was imposed penalty. His case was taken up by the Union. After conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to the appropriate Government, neither the workman nor the Union had any role to play in making of reference by the appropriate Government. If there is any delay, the delay is because of the appropriate Government. However, we cannot come to any.determinative conclusion as to whether there is delay or not because appellant has not placed before us the material facts pertaining to conciliation proceedings and submission of failure report by the Conciliation Officer.

¶45

Reverting back to the order of the learned Single Judge, we find that learned Single Judge on a perusal of the materials on record found that a major punishment was imposed on the respondent without conducting enquiry. The law on this point is very clear as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill (1 supra). l,earned Single Judge also noted that once reference was

¶46

I \

¶47

7 IICI & SNJ W. tl. No.1I6 of 2O2O

¶48

made by the appropriate Government, ttrt: .lndustrial Tribunal ot ght not to have dismissed the indrrs;trizrl dispute on the gro rnd ol delay and laches. As a rta.tter of fact, learnecl Sir gle Judge has categorically retur r:ed a finding that there was no delay and laches on th,: pa:t of the workman. 'Ve have no materia,l before us to disiodSie such a finding retu rned by the learned Single^.Judg -' as because appellant I ras not provided the materia particulars pertaining t r the conciiiation proceedings wlLi,::h are very much part and parcel of the settlement p:',:cess of an industrial di ;pute.

¶49

t 0

¶50

1 3. h Lsofar decision of the Suprem e. Court in Prabhakar (11 supra) is concerned, in paragrap h 44 thereof Supreme Co:rt observed that stale claims st ould not be referred for adjudication. Adjudication into stale claims have an unsr ttling effect dislocating an industrl .

¶51

L4. W -' fail to understand as to horv thi ; ,lecision is applicable to the facts of the present case when thr:re is a clear finding returned by the learned Single ,Iudge that

¶52

8 HCJ & SNJ W.A.No.416 of 2O2O

¶53

there was no delay and laches bn the part of the respondent with which we fully concur. Certainly, claim of the respondent was a live one and could not have been construed and rejected as stale claim.

¶54

On due consideration, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand only).

¶55

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,

¶56

if any, in the Writ Appea-I, shall stand closed

¶57

MEMORANDUM OF^COSTS

¶58

¶59

WRIT APPEAL^{NO: 416 OF 2020}

¶60

Costs Quantified^{by Hon'bleCourt(That} the ADoellant herein^{ts directed to pay} costs 6i Rs.5,000/-^{(Rupees Five Thousand} Only) to the Respondent^herein.

TOTAL

RS. PS,

5,000-00

5,000-00

SD/-M.MANJULA DEPUr2r-REGISTRAR

¶67