Partly allowed

Ch Chandra Shekar, Hyd v. the Depot Manager and Anr.

Telangana HC30 Aug 2023WP/27116/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court modified a Labour Court award reinstating a bus conductor, holding that while the applicant was entitled to reinstatement, it must be without continuity of service or back wages due to insufficient proof of misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by modifying the impugned award; petitioner reinstated with continuity of service only for terminal benefits, excluding back wages and attendant benefits.

Ch Chandra Shekar, Hyd Vs the Depot… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶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 SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27116 OF 2017

¶7

Between

¶8

CH CHANDRA SHEKAR, S/o. Ch. Narayana, Aged about 50 years, Ex-Conductor (E.207936), Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kachiguda Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . THE DEPOT MANAGER, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kachiguda Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-|, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the award in lD No. 38 of 2O14 dt. 30-'12-2015 on the file the 2nd respondent herein and declare the award in so far ordering fresh reinstatement as Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to treat the reinstatement of the petitioner as reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with back wages and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.

¶15

-7

¶16

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 33687 OF 20171

¶18

Petition under liection 151 CPC praying that in thr: circumstattces stated in the affidavit filed in ! upport of the petition, the High C;ourt rnEry tre^pleased to expedite the hearing c f the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P VENKATESWARA RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS SC F,3R TSRTC

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR

¶22

The Court made the f cllowing: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶25

qrRIT PETITION No.27116 of 2OL7

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the foilowing prayer:-

¶28

"...fo issue a rait or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of urit of CerTiorai calling for the record.s relating to the antard in ID No. 38 of 2O14 dt 30.12.2015 on tle file the 2"d respondent herein and declare tlle award in so far ordeinq fresh reinstatem.ent o.s Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal and ansequentlg direct the 1"' respondent to treat the reinstatemertt of tle petitioner as reinstatement utith antinuitg of seruice, attendant benefits and uith back utages."

¶29

Heard Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation.

¶30

karned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the year 1996 in the respondent corporation and his service were regularized on 02.01.1998. The petitioner performed the duties on 12.04.2013, with Bus No.AP|1Z3O73 on route 2J (JiyagudaSec'bad) a check was exercised at stage No.9/B (RTC XRoad) and the checking officials found that the petitioner has issued unconcerned ticket ,/ J of Rs.9 to a passenger.. Basing on the

¶31

¶32

checking o.ficial's report, the respondent corporirtic,n suspended the petitioner from service and issrted^,:h ar11e sheet on 30.04.201:1. The petitioner submitted his exrl,en:Ltion and not satisfying vith the same, the respondent Corl,oration ordered regular en<1uiry. Basing on the report of :he Encluiry Officer, the disciplinar z authority imposed punishmerLt r,lmoving the petitioner from service through ordr:r drlt,:d 15.07 .2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal, revlston on petition anrd mercy petition and the same wer€ rejected 29.ll.2olai, Ol.O2.2Ol4 and ll.O4.2oltt respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispr-:tr' invoking the provisions of Section 2- A(21 of the Industrial ttisputes Act, 1947 (herein aftt r called asthe Act') vide t.D.No.3B 'tf 2Ol4

¶33

[rarr.ed counsel for the petitioner submiLs th,lt the Labour Court hav ing satisfied with the contontiorrs rzrised by the petitioner lras passed impugned award directi:rp, the respondent Corporatio r to appoirrt the petitioner as fresh^,rond -rctor without back u,agel;, attendant benefits and conti euit5r o1' se rvice

¶34

Learr.ed counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the clrarge levelled against the petitioner wa:J not proved

I I l I -i i i

The respondent Corporation has not established the charge levelled against the petitioner by examining the passengers during the course of enquiry. In such circumstances, the Labour Court ought not have allowed the LD. extend the claim raised by the petitioner, continuity ol the service, attendant benefits and back wages. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to law. Merely basing on the statement recorded by the checking ofhcials, the disciplinary authority imposed major punishment and the same is contrary to law. The said aspect was not considered by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award.

¶39

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent Corporation initiated the disciplinary proceedings after^'following the regulations and conducted detailed enquiry by appointing Enqurry Officer. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has given all opportunities to the^petitioner and the petitioner has not raised any objections.^{The Enquiry} Officer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report wherein he has given specihc findings that the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. Thereafter,^the

t i I

respondent Corporation issued notice by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report directing the petitioner tr submit his explanation as to wh y punishment should not be imposr:d rn him. After consideri rg the explanation submittecl by ttre petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the impul3ned orde:: removing the petitioner from service by giving cogent ree-sons and the said revlslons order wa s confirmed by the appellette aul.hority, authority arrd also in the mercy petition. The, Labour Court also specifically held that the domestic enrluiry conrlucted by the responder rt Corporation is valid. However, t;te Labour Court taking intc consideration the service rendered by the petitioner has passt d impugned award exercising the powers conlirmed under Se< tion I l(a) of the Act and pursuant to the impugned award passed by the Labour Court datect 30 12.2O15, the petitioner was reinstated into service. The pt:titio:eer raised the objections lor non-examination of the passengers by the responden t Corporation in the Writ Petitio n. Ihe scope of judicial review is very limited to interfere v,ith the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. The lr:anted Standing Counsel fi rther submits that the examin.ation of the passengers

---,,

is not required and in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. I/s. Ro:ttan Singht dated 22.O3.t997.

¶48

7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it clearly reveals that the respondent Corporation issued charge sheet with the follou,ing

¶49

charge:-

¶50

'For^{having collected Rs.9/- from a passengerfor his journey at} boarding point ie Secunderabad Station and issued ticket bearing No.381/1O9696 of R-s.9/- denomination which is unconcerned as per your STAR document No.118/783116 dt.L2-4-2OL3 while performing duty, on L2-4-2OL3 on route No.2J (BKP:18/11 whtch constitutes misconddct under Reg.28 (ixf(af & (,I]o<ii) of APSRI1C Employees' (Conductl Regulations 1963".

¶51

Pursuant to the above charge, the petitioner submitted explanation on O9.O5.2013 and having not satisfied u,ith the same, the respondent Corporation ordered regular enquiry. The Enquiry Ofl-rcer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report under Ex.M2 l, dated 06.06.2O13. Pursuant to 1 Civil Appeal No.922 of 1976

¶52

¶53

i I i i t

¶54

the same, the respondent Corporation issued sltou' cause notice dated 15.( 7.2013 under Ex.M24. The petiticn,:r^{:;ubmittedhis} representation on 3O.O7.2013 under ErM26 The disciplinary authority rrfter taking into consideration of the explanation, has removed ,he petitioner from service throullh order dated O8.O8.2OI l. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority, revisional authority and in ,tht: mt:rcy petition. Thereafter the petitioner raised a dispute vide I.D.No.3S of 2014. Be:bre the Labour Court, Ex.W-r to t)x.W 5 documents were marl:ed on behalf of the petitioner. Ex.M- I to Ex.M-37 documents were marked on behalf of the re spr)ndent. The Labour Court after considering the contr:ntiorLs of the petitioner and docurnentar5r evidence on record, passe<l the impugned award reinstating the petitioner into service as a fresh conductor without any back wages, erttenctant benelits and continuity of service. This is not a case of th,:^rlor?oration that the petitiorrer reissued the ticket and collecte<l the amount from the pass( nger. The disciplinary authorit r' imposed the punishmerrt basing on the statement of the passengers though the said F assengers were not examinetl during r-he course of

1 I i

enqulry.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is further modified holding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuitv of the service for the purpose of claiming terminal benefits only and he is not entitled for any other service benefits including back wages.

¶60