Disposed

T. Bhaskar, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC28 Aug 2023WP/22973/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction) disposed of a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal Award that reinstated a TSRTC driver denied back wages and reduction of increments. The Court modified the Award: removal treated as 'on duty' for terminal benefits only; reduction of one increment stage shall not postpone future increments; no monetary benefits for the service period.

What did the court decide?

Award modified: Removal treated as 'on duty' for terminal benefits only; reduction of one increment stage not to postpone future increments; no monetary benefits for service period.

T. Bhaskar, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22973 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Bhaskar, s/o Venkateswarlu, Driver, TSRTC, E 320066, Jagityal depot, Karimnagar dist.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, (Now changed as TSRTC), Karimnagar-l depot, Karimnagar, Karimnagar dist-

¶12

The Chairman cum presiding officer, lndustrial, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District,

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issued a Writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the Award in lD NO- 21 ot 20'14, dated 13-6-2016 on the file of 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary in so far against to the^petitioner in denial of continuity of service and all attendant benefits including increments and full back wages and quash the same in so far against to the^petitioner after calling the records on the file of 2nd respondent and further direct the 1st respondent to grant continuity of service and all attendant benefits Including increments and full back wages

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. GADDAM SRINIVAS^(SCFORTSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.22973 of 2Ol7

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition is fiied seel<ing following relief:

¶20

"...to issue a Writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the Award in ID No.21 o[ 2014 dated 13.06.2016 on the file of 2nd rcspondent as illegal and arbitrary in so lar against to the petitionet' in clcnial of continuity of service and all attendanL bcnellts including incr-ernents and full back wages and quash the same in so far agarnst ro thc potitioner after calling the records on the file of 2nd respondent and further direct the lst respondent to grant continuity oI sen,ice and all attcndant benehts including increments and full back ruages and pass such other ordcr or orders in the interest ofjusticr: as otherwise the petitioner may put irreparable loss and h:rrdship."

¶21

Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, Iearncd counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned sLanding counsel appearing for the rcspondent Corporation,

¶22

Learncd counscl for thc pctitioncr subrnits that the petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondcnt Corporation on I5.O5.1996 and his scn'ices were regularized oo 0 1 .0 1 . 1998. While he <sup>/as working in respondent No.1 Depot, he hacl issue<l a charge sheet dated 30.1O.2O12 allcging ttrat while performing dtrties on 2l.lo.2ol2 in Garuda bus bearing No.AP 1L Z 6036 on routc Bangalore to Karimnagar return trip, he allowed carrying liquor bottlcs in rhe bus Lvith the help of bus attendar. The petitioncr submitlccl cxplanation denying the charges levelled against him and respondcnt No.1, L>eing not satisfied with^thc

¶23

:1,,.l \ '^{\1, i\9-i('t :rtl_}

¶24

¶25

samc, ordere,i lcgular enquiry by appointing onqu.I of:l:er. [lc further submits thal ihc enqr-riry officcr without lolkru, nl, i -rt pr ri;ciplcs ol natural jusLrcc and wiLhout considering ,he statenrr:nt of r,r,itness submitted er:qr-riry report datcd 30.03.2013 holdin I thar rhc charges wcrc proved ancl basing on thc said enquirv r.eFort, -espondcnt No.1 issucd shou ciusc notice datcd 07 .06 .2O 13 <sup>.h1, thc proposed punishrnent tf removal from scr';ice should no: bc r-l.rpc.-.ccl.. The pctitioner subrnittcd represelttation requcs:ing n( t i.o lrnl)osc said oltnishmcnt, lL t u,ithoul considcr.ing thc san- r.:, resltonclcnt 1yo. i p:rsscci ordcr ijaicd 14.06.2Ci3 tcrn-iinatir-rg thc 1tr:Lrii.r cr froi,-, scr-,,,iccs. Aggrieved bv thr: same, the petitioner filed app ral ar.cl rer i,,rr, p<:lition and thc szrme were rejecteci through proceedir-r11s clate I ()o.09.2O 13 at'rd t\t_tr-t .zt ) r.+ tL 1l C( I tVUtrv.

¶26

Aggrieve d by lhe samc, petitioner raisr:d a 1ir;pr- tc ipr;oking the provisions of Sr:clion 2- A(21 of the Industrial Drs l. tcs Lcr. '1947 (br short, 'the I.D. Ar;t') uideI.D.No.2l of 2014 befcre th,: Indr,*;trial'lribunalcum-Labour rlcurt-cum-Vl Additional Distr ct a tr: S,rssiolts Court, Godavarikhani. ]'he lndustrial Tribunal sct asid,t [hc rcm()val order clatcd 14.06.2O1.1 alicl directed thc respondcnl C:()rp(.rati()n r() rcirrsterLc th<: petltloner into servicc and imposed pun shm( n b, rccl,,rr:ing one incrcmental s agc ,uvhich shall have cffect ,f post ror ir-rg ] tis future incrcments an I tl-rc intervening period from tlre da c 6f l- is 1c:moval till

¶27

JSR. J $ l' No 2297] ol 20l7

¶28

¶29

his reinstatement shall be treated as^,not on duty,for all purposes and also denied back wages by its Award dated 13.06.2O 16.

¶30

Learned counsel vehemently contended that Industrial Tribunat having satisfied with the contentions of the petitioner ought not to have imposed the punishment of reduction of one increment which shall have effect of postponing his future increme nts and treated the period i.e., lrom the date of remova] to the date of reinstatement as^,not on duty, is contrary to the material evidence on record.

¶31

Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing lbr the respondent Corporation submits that the Industrial Tribunal after considering thc contentions of both the parties, documentary evidence on record rightly passcd the impugned Award and therc is no illcgality. or irregularity in the said Award to invoke the jurisdiction o[ tl-ris Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon pe rusal of the impugned Award, it reveals that the respondent Corporation issued a charge sheet dated 30.12.2012 rvith the following charges:

¶33

For having violated the rule for not to allo\r and transport prohibited liquor bottles in the bu s u,hich ls a serlQus misconduct.

¶34

2 For having transported prohibited liquor bottlcs in (6) cotto[s li.e.,⁷² bsttles)^illegal from Bangalore ro Kanmnagar in the

¶35

r 'r\lt \ l, t() ii9,'i oi^:i)i-

¶36

¶37

Garucla bus No.AP-11-Z 6036 on^{2l.lO.'.1,O12anrtar.rrished the} im rgr: of the corporation^{rvhich is a serious misc )lr luc}

¶38

It also reveals lrotn the record that^petitiol cr^{subillitteclhis} cxpianation o r 05. ii .2Oi3 anci not satisfying^tl- t: sanlc^{re spcndcnt} corporation apllointed cnquilf/ officer to conduc'^{:ttc lriry and alter} conducting cn 1uiry submittcd his rcport dated 30.0^{Lll0 1:i. Pursuant to} the samc, rcsg orrdcnt Coroorzrtion issued noticc bv^{,:rlclo;.ngcopY oI thc} enquiry rcport to the petitioncr anci he s;ubmrtt|d^{I e presentation'} 'lhereaftcr, rcs pondent No. i passcd order datc d | 4.()' ,.21) I 3 terminating the petitioncr [rom serviccs anrl Lhe said or(ler w ls^{r:<:t tlirn-lccl by Lhe} appetlatc and rt:r'isional authoritics vide orders delt:d^{0tr.09.20i3anci} 1O.O4.2O14 rrspectivelr'.^'lhcrcaftcr, petitiorcr raistcl :r disputc^uirie l.D.lJi; 21 .;l lO l i rr-IC Lht: irtrlt-tstrial^'lribural aftr r^{,:,tnsicieringLilc} conLcntiorrs o^r irc re spcr:tivc partics and docum, r', x1" 11'1dqnr-rj^viz Exs.W.l ro W 9 and trxs.M.l to M.31 passed thc in.pugned^{Award on} 73.06.2O16 s,:tling aside thc rcmoval order clatec 14.06.2013^and dirccted Lhc^{-cslrot-ident} Coi'poration to reinstzlLe hc petil-ioner^inlo service, but $,:thout ar-rv back n,agcs and also impos;crl punishmcnt^"pay reductior] bv c nr: increment stagc" which shali havt t'll-cr't ol^postponing lris fulurc ir-tc'c:ncnis and intcrvcning period i.e., 'r', n-r tlic dale^{ol his} removal till h;s reinsLatemcnt shal! be treatel zrs 'n r(^-rr clutr'' lor all purposes and ,lenicd bacl< u,agcs

¶39

JSR..l \l P No ll97l ol l0ll

¶40

¶41

I I 1

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and thc length of service rendered by the petitioner and to meel the ends of justice, the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is modified from reduction of one incremental stage which shall have effect of postponing his future increments to the extent of reduction of one incremental stage which shall not have effect of postponing his luture increments and it is needless to say that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary benefits for the said period and further removal period shall be trcatcd as 'on duty', for the purpose of claiming terminal benelits orrly.

¶43

With the above modihcation, the wriI petition IS disposcd of accordingly. No costs

¶44

As a sequel, miscellaneous applicat-ions, pending if any, shall

¶45

stand closcd

¶46

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSrsrAlSAEGlsrRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To, 1 The Depot Manager,^{TSRTC Karimnagar-ldepot, Karimnagar, Karimnagar} dist.

¶49

2 i'ti" cn"i*un^{cum presidingoffrcer,lndustrial, Tribunal-cum-Labourcourt,} Godavarikhani,^{Karimnagar District}

¶50

3 i;; Cc; t" GF^{Fon LAaouR} 'High^{court for the State of relangana' at} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶51

4 ii;;-cC t" Snr. F.^{covttt DA RAJ ULU, Advggale- [-of-ucl-} -. . ^.

¶52

5 5;; ca io sni.^{onooaM sRlNlvAS(sc FoR TSRrc){oPUCl} 6 Two CD Copies BM GJP

'tN>

HIGH COURT

DATED:28108t2023

ORDER

WP.No.22973 of 2Gi7

/ aa '---
.,-' -- itl 1 L t, ;tt,.
,1, :,
'/ .a-'1) rN (,'\t'
, :;,i
(l) 'll
I ,.<'' ,lf
I '
,, ' .t/
:^y'
; /
/9,t.t t - ' .,..

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO:JTS

¶60

o- \S'f
xr-*

T. Bhaskar, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Bhaskar, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Venkatesham Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Telangana

K. Ushasree Vs The State of Telangana

Narra Priyanka Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

B. Sudarshanam, Vs The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company

Dr. G. Machender Vs The State of Telangana.

Sri T.S.A Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana