Dismissed

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hanamkonda, Warangal District v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Telangana HC18 Apr 2023WP/22411/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an Industrial Tribunal award modifying the petitioner's punishment for fare collection irregularities. The High Court held that judicial interference under Article 226 is limited to cases of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice, not to reappreciate evidence or alter proportionality unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as devoid of merit; impugned Labour Court award upheld.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hanamkonda… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3167 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:22411 OF 2OO7

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Presiding Officer, lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Warangal

¶12

2 A.Laxman Rao, S/o.Rangaiah, Conductor H.No.25-4-70, Rahmathnagar, Kazipet, Warangal

¶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 issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for all the records relating to Award in lD.No.'1312005 dated 12.3.2007 on the file of the Labour court at Warangal which was^published in G.o.Rt.No.1360 of Labour, Employment, Training and Factories^(Lab.l) Department dated^'14.6.2007 and set aside the same as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case. i

¶15

Counsel for the Pdtitioner: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, S.C. FOR^TSRTC

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI S. PRADEEP^KUMAR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IIltr Il(lN'lll.tl SItl JUSIl(lll A. AIIHIStI[K RIi])DY

¶20

V{rltl'l' Pfi I I'l'ION No.22411 of 2t)07

¶21

OI{l)ilt:

¶22

Ch,rlli'n ;irr;i the ,\n,rrtl tlatccl l2 01.20(r/, 1'r1;: 't{ b1, t[c lntlLrstrial Ilrl una cLlll L,r[)ou] (-ourt .rt \'ararrrg,rl. ir. L[).No.13 of 2(X)5, tht' Pc i1i1111r.', lras lilecl Lht. p1g5c;11 writ rrctitic,n

¶23

2 I-hc irrt t; oi lhe caso, in bliol, arc that tl-rr, rcsponcle_.nt No.2 was appointcc as a^(lrnductrtr in tlre pctitioner (,orpcr ation. ()rr 14.11.lr99), r,' l ilt, thc rcslx)nclenl No.2 r,r,as corrduct:irl, a bus on ihe rou tc Vt/a-a rgal-llattupnlij, dI Stage No.1 ,' ie., I )ar,3a, tJre Divisiorral l;nf tr.-crncnt Srluad, \/.1r'arlgal, have ext:r'cjst cl a chcck, founcl ccrtain c.rsh alrd ticket irr-cgu larit ies, and is:;u:d char;ge shcr:t dateci 23 1l 1993. I hclc.af tcr, clomcstt_ cmluirl a.irs c rdert:d against the :r': ponelt'nt No.2. I hc petitioncr, baserl or thc repcirt subn.rilterl [rr' 1lrt, Iinrluirr'^()f[iccr, ..1nle [o the c,rnr.lu:;ton that the chargcs lcvt'llr cl a1la insL Lhc res;rrtrrrlent No.2 rvr.t.e 1t1 :r,r d, arrd accordinlllv, inposcd thc punrshit.re-nt oI clcft'rnrent of annual gradc irrcre'rnt rt for a pcriod <tl: t!v() vcars wjth cumr- lativ,: effect besiclt,s treaLir g tho prcriorl of suspcn5i1y11 as nol or-L clutt' i,irlr pror-ct,r-lin;,,,s {a tc-el 27.(11 .1991. (-ltalk,nging tlrr-. !,rn.re, thr:

¶24

I (

¶25

¶26

rcsponclent No.2 has filccl an appeal, but thc same was reiected try the Senior N4anage'r (O), Wararrgal City airJe procccdings datecl 06.09-1995. As tlrc conciliation proceedings moved bv the respondent No.2 aftcr a periocl of nine years failecl, the Governmcnt has rcferred thc dispute to thc Industrial lribunalcum-Labour Couri, Wararrgal, under Section 10(1)(d) of the lndustrial Dispu tes Acl, 7947 . The matter was taken as I.D.No.13 of 2005. l-he Labour Court uide Award dated 72.03.2007 has modified the purrishrnent imposed by the petitioner on the respondent No.2 to that of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect besides treating the period of susperrsion as not on duty. Challenging the Award dated 12.03.2007, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has stated that the charges levelled against the respondent No.2^wcre proved and that the respondent^No.2 failed to explain thc reasons for the inordinate delay of nine years in moving the conciliation proceedings, and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have^taken a^lenient view and imposed^a minor punishment of deferment o[ annual grade increment for^a

i:-

-::-]---

per-iori ci s,ir rror-rtits rlitlt L untrrl.ttivt, r.ilocL, .tn,l tl.t(.t.clol.c, pral,ecl lltis^,l c urt to sct asjrJc thc inrpugnt,ri Au arrl

¶32

.1. I'r,r.^('() ttlA, tl-ro lt'.rrrrcd cour-.rst.l aPl)o(lril,, lr)r tlttt

¶33

rcsponcl( trt N ) has stal.ctl that Llre Labour (_(,urt, alt,tr- lrcarinli both sitles i lr,1 lakirr..1 into eonsic]eratiolr tlrr: .tcts ancl circulnstilnces o tlrt'caser, has rillhtly nrorliIicrl tl]c Irr1.ri,;hn1s111 imposed ., th.: r'es pctr.r r{t,. t N. 2 lr.rn de[t,rntrtrrt r,f ar-t ru:rl graclc incremctrts fo .. pr:riod L)l t\vo \r.(tt.q wrth curnulat.,/,, e ,icct to that oi clofcrrr errt of annual grirr-ic increnrenl l-rr : pt,rior. ol- six months *'itlt c rrrtrulativ(. cllr'ct Ihe. lc.tr.ccl (.(,u1rs.l fras further statecl that tlre sr opc ol itrterfert'lrce of this Coult vritlr rhe Ar.r.ard passed by ttrc -aboul Court in a rr,r'rt petition urrdt,r 1.r.iiclt,226 of thc. Constituti rn oI Inc]ia is vt'r.r. linrik:cl antl tht,rr,lorc, Lrrayed this Cour i to d isrniss tht'u,rit petition,

¶34

Hearcl I: tti'r siclcs and perusetl the ret:orc1

¶35

A f-:eru ;a of thc inrpullneti Arvard rj ist-lose:, tl rat the [,abour⁽ ourt, ai ter goinq tltroul;h tl-re cntirc er, idr.r..,c: ,rn record, hclcl that th,: I :sPonrlent No.2 in his spot t xPls r1311q,1, lras clearlv adr-nittecl tlLat tltc [our p:,.rssen 11r.r's, rvho bo;-rcl,:d Llrc bus at

¶36

ET'EE ,^{

¶37

I;atl'rirna llosprtal, clitl noL pay thc ntrluisite farc inrmcrliaicly in spite of sevoral letlucsts, ancl in the rneannhile, the trus reached Stagc No.17 ancl the l-l'ls [our-rc1 thent tit:ketless. After the chcck was excrciscd, thc saicl fou r passcngt-.rs havc paid the [ine. TIre Labour Court has [u rther helci that it is a casc of non-collection o[ the fare ancl non-issuance of tickets and the same will be dealt with unc'ler M'ID.141; that as per M't'D.141, the check has to be conducted at ncxt I.[.(]. point i.e., ['{arijanawada but not atDarga; that TTI specifically admittecl that the next T.l.C. point is not mentioned in M'l D.141 card; that the passengers were bound to stage No.21 and they wcre nol alighting at the place of check, and therefore, the l'fls were not supposed to check the bus at stage No.17; that the respondent No.2 has stated that he has closed the S.R. against Stage No.17 after crossing the request stage No.15/17 and only after the closure of the S.R., the said four passengers have boarded the bus and that after issuing tickets to them, he intended to round off the figure and close the denomination at stage no.17 and in the meanwhile, the check was exercised. The Labour Court has furthcr held that the punishment imposed on the respondcnt No.2 is d isproportiona te to the charges Ievelled

I I

i tl I

alr.rinst h rr .rn.l .r('(or(iilrqlr' :rotlilieLl tht, Prrr-i, - rlrt,irt inrPoserrl o. L1rr, ri';p.r.clt,t.rt \rt.2 l. lit,r[ .[ (i(,lcr.r(,r]l rl a..uai rSratio Ur.r|ltr(.nl Irtr a ;rt riOcl ol srr months r,t iti. rr rulttivc t f l-ect bositlcs tr,'a inS the. pq.r11;1{ 6l sus;--rcpsiclp as r.r< t ,r - Jutt

¶43

.,\ cl r rr ittccl Iy, irr tltis c.tse, durrn;; tlrt ,:11 risc, check condu('l;e( h1, the authoritics. it rn,as founrl tlr,rl lre rcsponcient No.2 ha cl not rssued tickcts to thc four passellltcr! It is not thc casc of tt c pctitionc.r that tlte respondL.nt No..: lras takon fare. fror.n the ;a,cl four passcngcrs .rnc1 has not issu,r,1 thc tic:kets to thenr. .\c r-nittedll', the saiti lour tickctltrss f a..senller.s have boar.lcri t rr: bus at Iiathit-na Ilospital arrd r1t siril; of the several requcst:;, lhcy have llot paid the fart, to the resP1r1l 1et Lt No.2 and lll thr: rrre,,nwlrile, tht bus reachecl Stagc No.17. ,^,ircr,-. thc chcck krok plrrct. Furthernrore, thr. responclent irlo.2 Itas; clearly statecl that af lc-r issuance o[ thc tickcts, he intcnck tl to close the denorni ra ion at Stagc No.17

¶44

JL is tc be notcd that thc scope of inter-fure,r-ct l.rr this Court undcr r\ rt cle 226 oI t]rc Constitution of IntJi.r is lr,r.i Iirnited

¶45

¶46

¶47

'l'he I lon'ble Suprrcme CourL in B.C. Clmluraedi a. l)nion of

¶48

lntliat has hcld as unclcr

¶49

"12. ltlicinl y,'1,x,if i5, nltl ttr ttpltr'tl _fntnt t dtatsiott btlt t rtrieu' of tlu nurnncr tn ulticlt tln rh:crsiotr is nt&:. Potutt-o,f jutltcinl relieu is ueutt ttt cnstrrc tlnl tfu indh,ulutl rta,it'cs fair trcntnrcnt n d tl;;t to anstrc tlnt llrlc conclttsiotr trhith tlrt: nutlutity rcnclns is neccssarily cttrrtct itr tlu, cyt of tlu, court. Wpt an inqutry is conductad orr cirarjcs ttf wiscttttduct by n puhlic sen'nnt, tle Court/l'rihrtutl is cttrtctrnul lo dctentitr tplrcllrcr tlrc inquinl tas luld by a c(rlttf(tant offtt,r ttr ulu,tlrcr nrlrls of mturnl justice are conphtd toith. lVu,llpr tlu: fndings or conclusiotts are bnsed on sonte etidtnce, lhe outhoritv enlrusted uith tht pooer to lnld inquiry lns jurisdiction, pttrucr nnd nttlnri\ to ranch a fnding of fact^{or contlusron.But tlmt} fnding^{musthe ltnsctl on some} eztidence. Neilltr tfu teclmicnl rules of Etndencc Act nor of proo[ of fact.or^{etidencerc delined lhcrein,ap1th1to tlisciplinnryproceeding.} Wten the authority flcccpts tlnt cttidtnce and conclusion receiues support tlerefrou, thc tiiscrplinary authoity is entitled to ltold tlnt tlu delinquett offcer is guilty of tltc clnrgc.'I'|rc Court/Trihunal in its poutcr ol judicial reuitru does not nct os aplleltate authoity to

¶50

reappreciqfu tle aruletcc nnd to nrriue n.t tls oun independent fndings^{on tle euitbncc.'l'hc Court/fribwtal nny interfere rulure} tlu authoity held the proceedings ngainst the delinquent olfcer in a flntner inconsistent uith tle rules of natural justice or in uiolation of stotlttot! rtles prescribing thc nrode of inquiry or tolrcre tlu conclusion or fnding n:achcd by tle disciplinary

¶51

authority is bnyl ott tto ct itlcttcc. lf tla conclusion or finding be such as no rtnsonabla person toould lmTte cl'er reached, the Cturt/I'ribunnl nny ittlufert roith tlt conclusion or tlrc fintlirtg,

'^{(r99s) 6 SCC 749}

It I I l I I I

lutl ut ntt' tltr teluj tn tr. ltrnruA( t!rtLtltroyrtrtlt to llt, fit

¶56

7^I I t Llt ciltlttrtul.rrtrtlttnlv r, tln' .ttlt turl,lt r , lit /.. l\ tr,/i. rt1t1,t't!^,'- 1 tL'.,'ttlttl. tltL,,rpltL ntt iutlnttltllr/i\ (t)r,\1f,,\t, ,i 1 i, ,. l,r t't't1!'Pttatt lt llt,, t't'idttrct or llk, tlit n, o! 1t11111,111,1 ,til. , t ti rlt' it'ittt,t t1^;ttt1rtin1, tln' slntl proLti nI lt,!il t,a tit, (t tttj I ti t i ]r.\ tttt litr I t'trfuttct, or( llol rdt'a,Ltitt ,,\iL,q Lt( t/ rr/ r,a l,;(, l( r ()l rtl rrbtlittl )l t,ile ( alnnt)l bt l,ntrrttt,LI lrr lrr,anrrtr,sari b,l ,,, tlt, ('o rrl/l rt tt.utl

¶57

16 ,l r.cirierrr of tlu: aborc legnl posrtuttt u)ttuLd (t tilt t t,u tlt!, dtit ipltltt y tnlhority, tttt.[ on ty1tttl lln' typc[LalL tr,tlut,rttl t,.ittS Jrrtt^{-fLttrltt gauthLtrititshn'cL,tL.lusLt,t} llo(rtr lt) cotts rl:^. tltL ctttti?tlt( i )it t n t4tut to tfil tni rhsctltlinr,.'llpV np t tt\lt Li tr,ttlt ,,,,, tl,trrp'i1t,t lo intposL fi1111ft)pt.uttr llLnnslultanl kc,,ltitig t t r,it,tt tln tt tg riturlt ctr grnttity of tlr trl stotttltrt-t ilt, I liglt C.orrrt/lnryul ulrile .rd,?isrlr! tltc po11,gy of jtr,lici tl ,i,t,,1,u,. dutll[Jt 't ally suhslilut(, ils orrrrr conclusto oti l1(,tutl 1, ind irrrfosr, st n( otlrcr petltLtV. lf tfu punislnrnt in postn by tlu, rll:aipl tn\ a thority or tfu ilryL:llltt' n tltorit.,/ sirrt.r.; f/rr, rotttct(ttc of tltr IIigh CowL/ t'tibrttal, it tuotrld t1qn.o1 rt, ttltl tttrtrli t r reliaf, citfu,r drccting th: lisriph,ttr 1/tr1 1t lttt, urrltor.iltl to rrt'onsider tlt pentlttl itttposetl, Ln. t) stnr!,,1 llt(, Lilt,qtttt:ttt it luul itscl[, it etctytutturl nLd rart rytsr,s, ii, x)s(, tll)roprtn t ytttisluttnt tt'itlr rcgtnt ru$otts irr srrpycrl l,u,t.LL,f

¶58

J i. Na doubt, a*i1c crer.r.rsrrrg 7r(\rcr uulL't. ,\t.tiat( .,. b ol tltL l-ruts iltttitttt, tlrt, lliglt Cotrrts haut kt ltL,Ltr it uttti lhL. rc\lnuttls irherr:ttt irr cr.ct.crsrrrg pLttrcr of 1ru1i-nl rL,t,ttu t i, beLtrrrs,rt tlls llnt subshtution ol tlk, lliglr Cotrrt sa/d( /i,!r,,,lrlt! ipirol.nn t, uttnslurrtttt rs ttot ptrnussiblt. Brrl .fttt t ris t0,t lrr,rttt I i ttttlrl I^,n" ttnugltt llutt tlu, lair,,urtktrs do da:rrL, .rl1l,lL1 t t tr ol

¶59

¶60

;:,;,. "1*:i

¶61

jrtrlitnl tttnl tLt llu qut,sltort t)l ftltt ll.ol,or^{titttutlt typl} ptLrrislt n Lcn t/ptunlty I lntv sr?r{l so l,r,r'/?/ri, tlrc Iultrstrial Duputts Act, 1947 lt s lntL,ttleLl lo ins,rt S&ltou 11-A rtt rt to cot$,r tlis pL)ruer tttc ott u lrrbotr tturt/ittdust riri tribunr lt turrl hc tlnt tlis pou'cr uo. .otrft'rrc t)tt llrt'sa aijudialttng n tlt()ritips becius( of tlu pretalcnrc of unftir ltltour putLltct: or uttittisnlion ItV tlrc mn agcnx)rt. Lt'ctr so, tlrt ltLtror,t'rtrufur Stclitnr 11 t\ is npail c to be exerciscd, eoet if lltrt, ht tn lictitt sntion or lnkrng racoltrst to unfair lnhour prnctice. ln this ltra:kgrowttl, I dtt trot lltink il toe rloukl he justifcd in giuing ntrch u'eight to tht tltcisitnt of tte eruployer on tfu qucstion ol npproltrintc lnrnishuent in stnice mntters relnti g Io gotcnt Eul enrplotT,es or cnployecs of putthc corportttons. I lutt,c snid so be.ouse if nactl .fttr nuinlctmnce of olf.ce tliscipline be tfu reason of orLr odoplittg n strict nttittde qufl tlv public seruat1ts, disciplirc has lo be nnintnined in the intlustrial sector also.^'l'|rc aoailability of appeal ctc. to pultlic yn) nts dtgs not rnnke a renl diffcrence, ns tlv appcll te/reuisitDtol a tltority ls knozun to Imue takcn a differcnt tielL) on tlu qutstion of sentence only rarely. I toor. tl, theret'ore, tltink lhnt but for the self-itltrused limitqtion ultile exrcising pouer under Artrcle 226 of tlu Constitution, tlrcre is no inlrcrant reastt to tlisnllot| application of judicitl nind to thc qucstiott of proportionality "f punishmenthenalty. BLtt llrc , ultib yized uith tltis tlucstion rc n zoit court inlerferencc is pennissiblc o lV ulzn the pu nislu E n W nal t11 i s shocki ngl y dis p r() po r tio a te. "

¶62

ln Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cuiltlapah a. P. Gangarajuz, the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, observed as follows:

¶63

'^{rsss111nro1054 (D.B)}

¶64

¶65

'Il t' lrti,' llrit ,lts ('rtrrl. nl tt\ tt'tltot-dti lttttsiitlt tt, L (\ !t I ntI jL,,i!.'l,it !ttrlt.ll)ulltl 111 l;rntltl 1u tt \llrttt\nr I alt^)nt it ll ,' ltutt | .,tl^,ti Llttt il tntu!ol 1't,t.t(|' r,, 11't{r'r!/r^llrc tt't,lt^{rLL,rltLt t} .L,lt ,lt tlt,' ltlr'rt,tutttlioti 'tl lltL' lnlurturl isltes(t1.....

¶66

Il t' r^.Lll tltltri llttt rr ltttdrrtq t'otrlrI I,t stid /o lrr'/rr'i lt,r'r' c,ttl r il tl ,ttt lt ,ttl,t Itutl uo ruts,|trtltlL nuut, itt llr fttct:11111/ 1 11'11r;7r1 7r, 1's i/ tlu' ttt:, t)uLi rt,aclt ht tlutt t()tjaIuatotr is t1'tlal.r'ti lrt^!l L ,t,ur l-oirrl," u't nl. llprc rsrros/ralr litrltttu by tlt ltrrrtt, d !,li/:'^I'rllli'. l in,littlls^,nsttl ullon stnntst,s url cttnjccturcs, to tl^tltbt, .! tt.' ol la :rrr,i 1,,/rr' lln' .fttrLlings lnsetI uyott rt,itlt'1rca. lJul tltL' rlttt';lto t 'orritl lrd i\ /(l .{ rciht,t lletle i: trt l ti,ith'trct tutd tntllL,rutls tt r'a rlt t tl tl so illrcl tr tin, s,tirl ltrtlcrittls trttrl ttconl iu rc h k'ir uto ttttirir nr ntr^qtrl tlte oottilrtblc euitlttttr: toas ltntyterlt,,nlt,trti,ttL'rl It1 tltt lttl)(. r t)otrt't lf lha ntrtlcri s ue not tnkn iulL) an \1,1! itltL'l1 rut,! !lit L'i iltnc,,is nol proptrly nppyssinled hy tlp lt,bour .-.t,r.1. ll,t: sr?/,x,/.i /lr l'[t tL br: corrtctel bt1 tlttsCorrrt in^,lt'rcisL (rIi15t^,,ltont,i 1ru^{tnlt-lrrtr tttrfur} Arlicle^{2?6 of} tl t^{C(nstitution of lulir.ll rt itt llu} l,,.r)("s.;,^{f us C(ltrt cnot sLltstit/tt its orun opiniLtt, tl turi ( ttl i} liurlut;.^{rt1 (t gotnRrltlo llte ct,itlcttct "}

¶67

I I. Havirrg r()g.rrcl to thc aforcsaid reasons ilnci h rvilrtt rella rrl

¶68

kr tht. ratio [a cl dc,n,n by thc I lon'b1e Supreme C,ou"t^,; r thc above r('[(,rrec] irr(lq r(rnts, this Court is of the opinio'r that tlrt' linclirrgs oi thc Ialro rr^(,ourt are Lrased or1 thc m,rteria ln record I;u rtht nr.ror-e, the Labour Court ncither actcd ^ ithout^juri;diction lror in cx( esi of the polvcrs confcrred on rt. []r:' S:opc of irrterlt rcnr'.. I v this Cotrrt under nrticle 226 of the^{(]rrnstitution} of

¶69

¶70

t,;'

¶71

h.rdia is very lirnited, as hcld Lry the llon'ble Suprerne Court in

¶72

B.C. Chaturaedi's case (su1tra). Ihcrcforc, this Court is not

¶73

irrclined to ir-rterferc r.t,ith thc irnpug11e.1 An,artl clatcd 12.03.2007

¶74

passed by the l,abour Court, by excrcising its juriscliction unrler

¶75