Partly allowed

M. Prabhakar, v. The Presiding Officer

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024WP/39330/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a Labour Court Award dismissing an industrial dispute partly due to an eight-year delay. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that delay alone is not a bar to adjudication, the Court reduced the punishment from a two-stage pay reduction to a one-stage reduction without future impact.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 31.03.2012 set aside; punishment modified to reduction of pay by one increment stage only, with no effect on future increments; petitioner not entitled to backwages.

M. Prabhakar, Vs The Presiding Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

I I I I I

[³³⁰⁰ ]

I I i

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

¶6

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 39330 0F 2013

¶10

Between:

¶11

M. Prabhakar. S/o. Narsimhq, Aged about 41 years, Conductor (E.251733). APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Bus Depot, lVlahabubna.qar District, A.p.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court-lll, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad, A.P.

¶15

2 The Depot Iv1anager, APSRTC, Achampet Bus Depot, l,4ahabubnagar District, A.P

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 l.D. No. 10 of 2010, dt.31-03-2012 on the file the Respondent No.1 herein and declare it for not setting aside the punishment challenged in the said lD is bad, arb:trary, illegal and consequently direct the respondent corporation to allow the reduced / deferred increments with proper fixation by paying the arrears

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKATESWAR RAO

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR LABOUR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MS. SAI MAHITHA, SC AppEARtNG FOR sRt R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

__-7

39330 2013 N8K, J

; l l

TH N' RI N E B EEM PA WRIT PET^{ITION No.393} O ofZ 13

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner^{was appointedas Conductorin the year19BB} and his services^{were regularizedin the year 1989' A punishmentof} reduction of^pay by^{two incremental stages affectingfuture} increments^{was imposedon him for the reasonthat he rlommitted} irregularities^{when closing/writing ticket numbersin the Statistical} Ticket Accountable^{and Record(STARJdocumentwhile performing} dury on 31.03.2000^{on route Telkapallyto Achampeton Bus No'5001'} The Appeal filed^{beforethe Divisional Managerwas rejectedon} 28.07,2003, and^{the Review Petitionfiled before thtl Regional} Manager, Mahabubnagar,^{was also rejected on28'07 '2004''fhereafter'} the petitioner^{approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour'} Mahabubnagar,^{for conciliation, however, the conciliation firiled. The} matter was then^{referred to the Labour Court by the Government' The} Labour court^{registered an lndustrial Disputevide ID No.10 of 2010,} and after due enquiry,^{passed an Awarddated 31.03.2012 dismissing} the ID observing^{that the petitioner has not furnished explanationfor} the inordinate delay of^{eight years in approachingthe Court'} Challenging the same,^{the present petitionis filed'}

¶29

Heard Mr. P, Venkateshwer^{Rao, learned counselfor the} petitioner, and Ms. Sai Mahitha,^{learned counsel appearingon behalf} of Mr.*$. -Anurag,^{learnedStanding Counsel for respondent-Road} Transport CorPoration.

¶30

¶31

wp_39330 2013 NBK, J

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would submit that the punishment imposed was a major punishment and not minor. He submits that scrutiny of STAR document has to be done within a week, but in the instant case it was done after a lapse of four months. He would further submit that the petitioner has approached the authorities byAppea[, Revision and also before the Conciliation authority. He would essentially contend that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by reducing his pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He further submits that the cause of action being recurring in nature, there cannot be denial of relief on the ground of latches, more so, when there is no limitation specified in the Industrial Disputes Act. Further though there is admitted delay, the Court could mould the relief rather than dismissing on technicality. He relies on judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Scholars and Teachers Action Committee (STAC) v. Andhra Universit5rl; M.R.Gupta v. Union of Indiaz.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, justifies the impugned Award and submits that the Award has been passed after due consideration of the facts o[ the case and material on record. He further submits that there is unexplained delay of eight years in approaching the Court and therefore the Award needs no interference.

¶34

'rsse lzyaro rzzo oa ' ara rggasc 6og

¶35

¶36

wp 39330²⁰¹³ NBK, ]

¶37

Considering the respective^{submissions,it may be notedthat} the grievance is^{r,'"'ithregardto the proportionalityof punishment vis-} i-vis misconduct. The^{reason for which the Labour (lourt has} dismissed the lD is^{tl.rat the petitioner has not furnishedany} explanation for^{the delay of eight years in approaching the Court'}

¶38

It may be noted that the^{Hon' ble SupremeCourtin Ajaib Singh} v. The Sirhind Cooperative^{MarketingCum ProcessingService} Society Ltd.:r ref-erred to^{a case in H'M.T, Ltd. v. Labour Court,} Ernakulama. H.M.T ltd^{(supra) is a casewherethere was a delayof} 14 years in ir.rvoking^the iurisdiction^{of the Court,and the Hon' ble} Supreme Court lound^{that insteadof full back wages, the grant of 60} percent of the back wages upon the^{reinstatementof the workman} would meet the ends of^{justice in that case. The Hon' ble Supreme} Court while adjudicating^{Aiaib Singh (supra) further heldas follows:}

¶39

"lt follows,^{therefore,that the provisionsof Article137 of} the Schedule to Limitation^{Act, 1963are not applicableto the} proceedings under the Act and that the relief^{under it cannot} be denied to the workman^{merely on the ground of delay. The} plea of delay if raised by the employer is^{requiredto be} proved as a matter of fact by showing the real^preiudiceand not as a merely hypothetical defence.^{No referenceto the} Labour Court can be^{generatlyquestioned on the ground of} delay alone. Even in a case where^{the delay in shown to be} existing, the Tribunal, Labour^{Court or Board, dealing with} the case can appropriately mould the^{relief by decliningto} grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the

¶40

'(rsgs) e scc sz

¶41

o lrssa; z scc rs

¶42

¶43

wp_39330_2013 11 NBK, J

¶44

demand regarding his illegal retrenchmenU termination or dismissal. The Court.may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages."

¶45

It may be noted that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1.942 is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted for the benefit of workman and therefore it should be interpreted in the way that benefits the workman. In the instant case, no doubt there is an admitted delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court and the petitioner is not fighting out on the aspect of delay. The purport of the judgment in Aiaib Singh (supra) is that onus of showing real prejudice caused in proceeding with adjudication, by ignoring the delay, rests with the employer and thereby the delay, on the part of the workman, by itself cannot become an impediment for adjudication or sole ground for dismissal of the petition or for denial of relief at the threshold. The Hon' ble Supreme Court was unequivocal that^.,no reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone". Further, the Supreme Court categorically held that in cases of delay, the Labour Court could suitably mould the reliei like denying backwages etc., for the delay on the part of workman. The respondent-Corporation, except pleading the ground of delay, could not show any real prejudice that could result if the case is adjudicated ignoring the delay occasioned, and the Labour court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of delay.

¶46

B. Considering respective submissions, and perusing the record, and ako-the law laid down by the Hon, ble Supreme Court in Ajaib

wp l9rl0 2013 NBK, J

Singh (supra), this Court is inclined to modify the^impugned punishment.

¶51

Accordingly, the Award dated 31.03.2012^{passed by the Labour} Court in ID No.10 of 2010 is set aside,^{and the writ petition is partly} allowed by modifying the impugned^{punishment to that ol ''reduction} of pay by one increment stage which shall^{not have effect on} future increments". The petitioner shall not be entitled^{to any} backwages on account of this order. No^{costs.Miscellaneous} petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶52

Witness^{THE HON'BLECHIEFJUSTICEALOK ARADHE' Saturday'The Twenty} First^{Day ot s"pl"t-# rwo rnousanA and Twenty Four}

¶53

SD/. P.^{PADM ANABHAREDDY} ASSIST REGISTRAR

¶54

//TRUE^COPY//

¶55

S ON OFFICER

¶56