Partly allowed

B. v. Narayana Son of Laxmaiah, v The Industrial Tribunal at Warangal, Represented by its

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023WP/14990/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an industrial tribunal award. High Court held the award was disproportionately punishing an employee with 15 years of service. Petitioner granted reinstatement with continuity of service.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated with continuity of service and removal period treated as on duty for terminal benefits within two months.

B. v. Narayana Son of Laxmaiah, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14990 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.V.Narayana Son of Laxmaiah, Occ. Ex. Conductor, E.342610, R/o 11-18670, Vivekanand Colony, Warangal (Rural), Telangana State.

¶10

._.PET|T|ONER AND

¶11

The lndustrial Tribunal at Warangal, Represented by its, Chairman, Warangal.

¶12

The Depot lt/anager, TSRTC, Narsampet Depot, Warangal (R).

¶13

..,RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the 1st Respondent in lD No. 52 o'f 2011, dated 22-12-2016 published on 28-03-2017, and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directrons, particularly one in the natirre of Writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the respondent in ID No. 52 of 2011, dated 22-12-2016 published on 28-03-2017, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law perverse and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, all other attendant benefits and back wages and grant consequential benefits in the interest of^justice and fair'play.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREEN,i/AS RAC'

¶18

I/RIT PETITION No.1499O of 20Li'

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Tl-ris Writ Fetition is liled under Article 226 <tf^{(k;nstitution} of Inclia seeking^t he lollowing relief:

¶21

{

¶22

"...lssue an appropiate Writ, O,"der or Directions, porticularLA one in the nature oi^\t/r,t of Certiorari ttnd quash the award passed ftvt il16 lst respondenr in ID No.52 of 2011, dated 22-l|l-2C16 lsublished^{on 28-03-2017, holding tlrc s(r,zeos} illegaL, uniust, contrarg to law peruer:;e) e.nd consequenllg direct the 2"d respondent to r=i,Lsi ate the pelitioner into seruice utith continuita of sen,ice, all other attendant benefits and back u,og,es end grctnt cons<quential benefits in the interest o.t rustice and fair plrty, and pass such other order ot t)raers as deem to ft,t and proper in tlrc circumstances of the cQse."

¶23

Heard Sri l.K..layaprakash Rao, learncd c,ritn:;cl for the petitioner, learner 1 Assistant Government Ple lder li rr Labour for respondent No.1 and Sri Gaddam Srinivas lea.-rred Standing Counsel for resporrdent No.2-Corporation.

¶24

Learned courrsel for the petitioner submitted tl:at petitioner o11 joined .rs conductor in the respondent No 2-Cc,rporation, 15.05. 199O on ,laily wage basis, and his r;ervices were regularized on 01. )).1999. While he was conrluctinil tl.re bus on route Srisailam tc Narsampet on 18.01.2010, a check was

¶25

¶26

¶27

exercised by the checking officials and issued a Charge Memo alleging certain cash and irregularities and pctitioner submitted spot explanation. On lO.O2.2O1O, rcspondent No.2 had issued Charge sheet and also suspended the pe titioner, pending enquiry. Pursuant the same, petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges leveled against him, not satislying with the same, ordered enquiry and basing upon the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry oflicer, the respondent No.2 imposed major punishment removing the petitioner liom the services through order dated 22.06.2010. Aggrieved by the sarne, petitioner Iiled appeal, revision and review petitions before respective authorities and the szune were rejected without giving reasons.

¶28

3.1. Petitioner raised a dispute uide I.D.No.52 of 2Ol1 invoking the provisions of Section 2A(21 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and herein after called "Act" for brevity, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal at Warangal, and the Tribuna-l without

¶29

¶30

¶31

properl-v consicjering the contention ol the petilioner, and evidcnce on recorcl, dismissccl thc I.D.No.52 tf 2011,.

¶32

3.2. He lurlher :ontended that respondent I'io.2-Crrrprolsfi6n 165 not produced ary iota of evidence nor exarrlined the passengers to prove the char ges. In the absence of the sam,:, b;lsing uporl the spot explar ation given by the petiticner ir rp,rs6d 1n4jo, punishment thc,ugh the petitioner denietl whire submitting explanation for :he charge sheet during th e course of regular enquiry. Hc further contended that Labour Court dis;missed thc I.D.No.52 o| 2Oli relying upon the statemeni. gir,en by the petitioner at the time of spot inspection without considering the contentions of th : petitioner, evidence on rec()rd anrl also rvithout exercising the p owers conferred under Ac: an,1 th e same is contrary to law.

¶33

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel subr:ritteC that the AS respondent-Corporation after following^c ue^pro<:edure prescribed under reguiations, issued charge sheet and appointed

¶34

¶35

¶36

enquiry officer for conducting enquiry. During the course ol enquiry, enquiry officer has given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case and the enquiry officer after detailed cnquiry, submitted report proving the charges leveled against the petitioner and the same was furnished to the petitioncr and after due verificatibn of the records, disciplinary authority rightly imposed punishment removing the petitioner lrom the scrvlce and the same was conlirmed by the Tribunal

¶37

4.1 He further contended that Labour Court after considering the contentions of both the parties, rightly passed the impugned award, and there is no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the said Award, as the scope of judicial review is very limited to exercise the^jurisdiction of this Court conferred under article 226 of Constitution of India. and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Having . considered the riva-l submissions rnade by respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on

¶39

¶40

record, it clcarl.y reveals that the responden- Corprrra-tion issued

¶41

charge rrremo on 1O.O2.2O 10 u,ith the follorv ng ch;rrgcs

¶42

¶43

" 1. For h(tt.,inq uiolated the rule lssue, rl-l'tse ct nd Stafl, uh;.clt is a misconduct under R<,'gulcttion 28(xxxii) cf the APSRTC Emplog,zes (r)onduct) Regul.cttion s, I 963;

¶44

For h,tuing colLecte:d^. Rs.2B/- ettch ficm tuo passenger:;, utho boarded the bus at Domaia Penta bound for ,Wonna Noor, ex-stages 33 tc 29, u' ho u.tere found^{trct t elling tuithout tickets uptc the} ,cot^ntof check, staqe No.31, tuhich is a serious r'.isconduct under Regttlation 2(ui)(a) of tlrc APSRTC f)n;.ploAees (Conduct) l,'egulation, 1963; and

¶45

For hauincl closed the ticket trag numbers upto stage No.31. without completing the ticket issues, wLtich. is t serious nti.sconduct under l,le,quiation 2g(xxxii) ,,_f the APSrRC Dmployees ((:orduct) Regulation:;, I^q63.

¶46

Pursuant to the same, petitioner subr:ritterl explalation.

¶47

Having been not satisfied u,ith the siame, rr-'spondent Corporation ord,:red domestic enquiry by al)poillting the enquiry officcr a rrl he submitted enquiry r'eport proving the charges leveled e.gainst the petitioner. Basing trpon the said enquiry report, the rcspondent Corporatiorr imposed punishment, rem oving the petitioner from the ;e:rvice by its order dated^')2.Or>.2OlO and the same was coniirm('d bv the

¶48

¶49

¶50

appellate, revision ancl review authorities. Thereafter petitioner raised a dispute vide I.D.No.52 of 2O11, and the Labour Court di"missed the I. D. on the ground that the petitioner has admitted his.mistake in the spot explanation recorded b,r, the checking officials. Though the material available on record reveais that petitioner had submitted detailed explanation to the charge memo dated 1O.02.2010, denying the charges arrd also during the course of the regular enquiry he denied the allegations rnade against him and also explained the reasons. 'l'he Labour Court has not considered the above said facts nor granted any relief exercising the powers conferred uncler provisions of the Act and dismissed the I.D.No.52 of 2Oll without granting any relief. It, further reveals from the record that the petitioner had rendered 11 years of^service 1n the corporation and the punishment of removal from services imposed by respondent Corporation is disproportionate.

¶51

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstartces of the case, and the length of the service rendered by the^petitioner

and also, to mer't the ends of justicc, the impugned zrn'ard passed by the l,abour Court datecl 22.122olo is modified holding that the petitioner is entitled reinstatemcrrt of service with continuity o1 service and r-emoval period is to t;e treatcd as "on duty" for the )urpose ol t:liiiming terminaL bene fits only, and the rest of the Au'ard is confirrned. Accordingly, lh,: r:spondent SCTVlCC Corporation is dir<-'cted to rcinstate the petrtionr:r ir-" to within a period cf tu'o (2) rnonths lrom the -late o'r()ceipt of a copy of this order subject to thr- mi'dicai exarrrinat on.

¶57

With the alrove modification, the vi,rit retitiotl is disposed of accordingly Ttrere shall be no order as to costs

¶58

Miscellaneo:s applications; pending .f ary s,hall stand closed.

¶59

I}D/.A V.S. PRASAD ASSI{iTAN'T^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// &, sl:G l-loN dFrtcen

¶60

¶61

To 1. The Chairman,^{lndustrial Tribunal at Warangal'.W?l'!S-1-,,-,} i. fn" Oepot^{Manager, TSRTC NarsampetDepotu/arangal(K)'} 5. d; c-ii; Sir^{Ak LeVnpRAKASHRAo AdvocateIoFt.l'11} ;. iffi 6crio^{cp roa reaoun,High court for the Stateof relangana' at} s. Hvderabad. ijl,!"ctiJsFrl [t)UT]^{-cdoonr,;tsRlNlvAS, sc FoR rsRrc [(]F'ucl} 6. Two CD^CoPi':s

PSK.t\ I-s (il,,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 109;2023

{

ORDER

WP.No.14990 ot 2017

y' -z-ia1t\ SlATE
r-
2
()).? lt1 SEP NB d)
o A-
*
,4
\ t t,espN

¶70

DISPOSING OI= THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COf;TS.

¶71

$A A
,{-,

B. v. Narayana Son of Laxmaiah, v The Industrial Tribunal at Warangal, Represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. v. Narayana Son of Laxmaiah, v The Industrial Tribunal at Warangal, Represented by its

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

D.Sanjay Vs S.Sreenivasa Chary, The District Educational Officer

V.Tirupathaiah Vs Sri Rajender Singh

G. Shamshuddin, Vs The Depot Manager

T.Sampath, Vs The District Employment officer, Warangal District

L.K. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

G.Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs The Project Director, D.W.M.a., Mgnregs Adilabad.