Partly allowed

The Depot Manager, Mbnr Dt. v. A.S. Kumar, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC30 Aug 2023WP/11708/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed TSRTC's petition challenging the reversal of an employee's removal. The Court held that since the main charge of fare collection was unproved, the Labour Court should have taken a lenient view on ancillary technical charges. Consequently, back wages were granted and one increment without cumulative effect was reinstated.

What did the court decide?

W.P. by TSRTC dismissed; W.P. by employee allowed; Award set aside to the extent of stopping increment and denying back wages; Respondents directed to pay back wages and revive the increment.

The Depot Manager, Mbnr Dt. Vs A.S. Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s71

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI^SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION NOs :11708 OF 2016 AND 9642^{OF 2017}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11708 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Depot [Vlanager, Telangana State^{RoadTransport Corporation,} Wanaparthy Depot, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 A.S.Kumar, S/o late Shyam Sunder, Aged about^{43 years, Occ: Ex Conductor} E. No. 253373, C/o Sii. V.Narasimha Goud,^{Advocate, H.No.3-18-83 (Plot} No.63), Pragathinagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad^{- '13.}

¶12

2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court^- Ill, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records^relating to^award.in l.D.No.29 of 2013 on the file of the Labour Court - lll dated^{17.07.2015 as} published in G.O.Rt.No.421 , Labour Employment Training and Factories (Labour) Department, Government of Telangana dated 01-09-2015^{and quash} the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and^{contrary to the law.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 14729 OF 2016)

¶16

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may^{be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the award in l.D.No.29 of 2013 on the file^{of the Labour} Court - lll dated 17.O7.201 5 as published in G.O.Rt.No^.421 , Labout^Employment

¶17

¶18

Training and Factories (Labour) Department, Government of Telangana dated 0'1-09-2015 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 1020 OF 20171

¶20

Between:

¶21

A.S.Kumar, S/o late Shyam Sunder, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Ex Conductor E. No. 253373, C/o Sri. V.Narasimha Goud, Advocate, H.No.3-18-83 (Plot No.63), Pragathinagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 13.

¶22

...PETITIONERYl "t RESPONDENT

¶23

AND

¶24

The Depot lvlanager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Wanaparthy Depot, tt4ahabubnagar District.

¶25

...1.t RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶26

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court - lll, Hyderabad.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 11.04.2016 in W.P.N/.P.No.14729 of 2016 in W.P.No.11708 of 2016 in the interest of^justice and fair play.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 9642 OF 2017

¶33

Between:

¶34

A.S.Kumar, S/o. late Shyam Sunder, Aged 46 years, Occ: Conductor, E.No.253373, RJo. 21-96, Old Fort, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

1 APSRTC, (Now TSRTC), Rep. by its [t4anaging Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC 'X' Road, Hyderabad.

¶38

2 The Deputy Chief Traffic lvlanager (Now DVIM), APSRTC (Now TSRTC), Mahabubnagar, lvlahabubnagar District.

¶39

The Depot Manager, APSRTC (Now TSRTC), Bus, Depot, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District.

¶40

¶41

The Labour Court-lll, Rep. by its^{Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building,} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High courtmay be pleased} to issue an appropriate^{writ or direction,particularlyone in the nature of wRlT oF} CERTIORARI,^quash ihe impugned^{award dated17.O7.2015 passed in l'D' No' 29} of 2013,^published on 19.09.2015^{on the file of the 4th respondent labour court in} so far as denying the back^{wages and deferring annual increment for a period of} one year without cumulative effect^{as arbitrary, unjust, and in violationof Art. 14, 16} and 2.1 of the constitution^{of lndia and consequentlythe petitioner pray this Hon'ble} Court may be^pleased to^{direct the respondents No.'l to 3 to pay the back wages} along with all consequential^{benefitsin the interestof justiceand fair play'}

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIV.NARASIMHA GOUD}

¶45

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.1 to 3: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS' SC FORTSRTC}

¶46

Counsel for.the Respondent^{No.4: GPFOR LABOUR}

¶47

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶48

¶49

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶50

WRIT PETITION Nos. 11708 of2016 and9642 of2017

¶51

COMMON ORDER:

¶52

Since both these writ petitions arc frled questioning the Award dated ',7.07.2015,^passed by Labour Courr-lll, Ilyderabad in I.D.No.29 of 2013, these writ petitions are heard^{together and} are being disposed of by this common order, For^{tl.re sake} of convenience, the parties are relerred to as arlayed in W.l'.No.9642 of 2017.

¶53

W.P.No.1l708 of 2016 is filed by TSRTC, agglievecl of^tl.re Award in the above I.D. to the extent of ordering lbr reinstatement of the Conductor, whereas, W.P.No.9642 of 2017 is filed by the Conductor, aggrieved of the said Award to the extent of ordering for stoppage of one increment without cumulative efl-ect and also to the extent of not award ing back-wages

¶54

Petitioner had^joined the service ol' l-SR'l'C as a Conductor

¶55

on 24. 10. 1989 and his services were regulariz.ed with e ffe,:t from 30.12.1990. While so. he was removed ll'om service b'l order

¶56

¶57

JS. J W.P-Nos-l1708 of 2016 & 9642 of 2017

¶58

d,ated,21.02.2013 passed by the 3'd respondent on the allegation that he was involved in cash and ticket irrcgularities while conducting the bus service on 13.09.2012 from MGBS, Hyderabad to Wanaparthy. The charges levelled against the petitioner read as

¶59

under:

¶60

"1 For having failed to observe the rule 'issue and start' which is a misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

¶61

2 For having collected the requisite fare of Rs. I 84/- lrom a batch of 2 passengers at boarding point itself who boarded the bus at Hyderabad and bound for Wanaparthy Ex-stage 19 to 0 1 and not issued the tickets while conducting the bus No.AP-29-Z-2961 opelating on the route Wanaparthy-Hyderabad on 13-09-2012 which is a misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1 963.

¶62

3 For having closed the SR (STAR) up to the stage No. 17 i.e. place of check without completing the correct ticket issues which is a misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963."

¶63

Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner

¶64

preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 18.05.2013. Questioning the same, he hled I.D.No.29 of 2013 before Labour Court-III, Hyderabad and the

¶65

¶66

JS, J llt. P.Nos- l l70E of 2016 & 964) of 2017

¶67

¶68

Labour Court, by Award dated 11 .07.2015, set aside the order of removal dated 21.02.2013, however, imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and also held that the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service and attendant benefits, however, back-wages are not granted

¶69

Aggrieved of the part of the Award that went against them as aforesaid, the TSRTC as well as the employee/Conductor: have filed these writ petitions.

¶70

It is contended by the leamed counsel for petitioner that the Labour Courl has erred in denying back-wages and also in deferring annual increment for one year without cumuiative effect inspite of holding that Charge No.2 is not proved. lt is contended that though the main charge of collection of fare and not issuing tickets is not proved, the Labour Court has erroneously ordered for withholding of one annual increment merely based on its findings on charge Nos.l and 3, which are purely of technical and consequential charges to Charge No.2. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that he along with his family

¶71

¶72

JS. J W.P.Nos.1 1708 of 20t6 & 9642 of 2017

¶73

members, have suffered during the^,out of employment periocl, from 21.02.2013 to 19.10.2015 due to unproved charges, and hence, the Labour Court ought to have granted back_wages for the said period. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the Award of Labour Court to the extent of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and of not granting back-wages.

¶74

On the other hand, it is contended by the leamed Standing Counsel for TSRTC that the Labour Court has erred in setting aside the order of removal. It is contended that the petitioner was removed from service after conducting inquiry and after following the due procedure prescribed under the Regulations, therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have set aside the order of removal. Accordingly, he prayed to allow W.p.No.1 l70g of 2016 by setting aside the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. In support of his contentions, the learned Standing Counsel has relied on the

¶75

following judgments:

¶76

U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharmar.

¶77

Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T.Mane2.

¶78

1 (2010) 6 scc 555

¶79

' MANU/SC/0832/2004

¶80

¶81

JS, J W.P.Nos.l1708 of 2016 & 9642 oI20I7

¶82

¶83

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Gajadhar Nath3.

¶84

G.R.Reddy v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godavarikhani & anothera

¶85

The aforesaid^judgments relate to collection of fare but not issuing tickets and also non-examination of relevant passengers etc" However, in the present case, the allegation of collecting fare and not issuing ticket is not estabiished even after recordir.rg the statement of the passenger who did not take ticket, as the said passenger deposed that he did not give fare to the Conduclor and not purchased the ticket as he was busy talking in mobile phone. Therefore, the above^judgments are not applicable to the faots and circumstances of the present case

¶86

A perusal of the impugned Award dated 17.07.201 5 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.29 of 2013 discloses that it has extracted the deposition of the passenger by name M.Janardhan, who has stated that he did not pay amount nor purchased tickets from the Conductor as he was engaged in talking on mobile phone, however, when check was conducted, he told lies to the TTIs. with

¶87

3 (2022) 3 scc 190

¶88

o rsss 1r1 ALD 616 (FB)

¶89

¶90

JS, J lr.P.i;os.l 1708 ol 2016 & 9642 ol20l7

¶91

guilty feeling. Basing on the said starement, the Labour Court held that Charge No.2 that the petitioner received the amount and did not issue tickets is not established, and hence, the petitioner can'rot be held guilty of the said charge.

¶92

The other two charges i.e. Charge Nos. 1 and 3 relate to observing the rule of^,issue and start, and not closing the SR (STAR) up to Stage No.17 i.e. the place of check. The Labour Court held those two charges as proved. As rightly contended by the leamed counsel for petitioner, of the three charges levelled against the petitioner, Charge No.2 alone is serious one, because it relates to collection of fare and not issuing tickets and the same is not proved in the inquiry. T'herefore, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court should have taken a lenient view on the other two ancillary charges and should not have ordered for stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and should not have denied back-wages to the petitioner.

¶93

For the aforesaid reasons, W.p.No.l170g of 2016 filed by the TSRTC is dismissed and W.p.No.9642 of 20i7 filed bv the

¶94

¶95

IS' J W.P.Nos.l1708 of 2016 & 9642 of 2017

¶96

¶97

'-I.

¶98

employee/Conductor is allowed. Accordingly, the^impugned Award dated 17 .07 .2015 passed by Labour Court-III,^Hyderabadin I.D.No.29 of 2013 to the extent of stoppage of^{one increment} without cumulative effect and to the extent of^{not grantingback-} wages, is set aside. Consequently, the respondents^{in W.P.lrIo.9642} of 2017 are directed to revive the increment^{which was stopped and} pay back-wages to the petitioner. The Award of the Labour Court 10 the extent of setting aside the order of removal dated 21 .02.2013, granting continuity of service and attcndant benefits stands confirned. No order as to costs.

¶99

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶100

closed.

¶101

That Rule Nisi has made Absolute^{as above witnessThe Hon'ble SRIALOK} ARADHE, The Chief Justice^{on this Wednesday,the ThirtiethDay of August,} Two Thousand and TwentY^Three.

¶102

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTATI-T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ( :b SECTION OFFICER

¶103