WP/1642/2004 of K. Kesavulu, S/o. Balaiah, Vs The Depot Manager, on 30 December 2010

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION Nos.1642 OF 2004 AND 21525 OF 2002COMMON ORDER:

These two writ petitions are filed challenging the award dated 03-10-2001 in I.D. No.234 of 1996 passed by the Labour Court,Guntur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to asarrayed in WP No.1642 of 2004.

3. The petitioner was employed as Helper in ChilakaluripetDepot of A.P.S.R.T.C. A charge sheet was issued to him alleging thathe remained unauthorizedly absent from 12-12-1986 to 15-02-1987and 26-02-1987 to 14-03-1987. The petitioner submitted his explanationand the same did not weigh with the respondent. Enquiry Officer wasappointed, and on the basis of the report submitted by the EnquiryOfficer, the respondent passed an order, dated 15-09-1987, directingremoval of the petitioner from service.

4. The petitioner filed I.D. No.234 of 1996 under Section 2A (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before theLabour Court. During the pendency of the I.D., petitioner attained theage of superannuation in July 2000. The Labour Court passed anaward, dated 03-10-2001, holding that the charges framed against thepetitioner are not proved. Relief in the form of back wages from thedate of filing of the I.D., till the date on which the petitioner attained theage of superannuation was granted. The petitioner claims that he isentitled to award back wages from the date of removal from serviceand that the Labour Court was not justified in denying the same.

5. The respondent, on the other hand, filed WP No.21525 of 2002 challenging the award. According to it, the findings were notproved through oral and documentary evidence and there was nojustification for the Labour Court in interfering with the order of removalin the I.D., which was filed with a delay of 9 years. It is also stated thatthe petitioner was imposed punishment on several previous occasionson proved grounds of misconduct.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent.

7. The charges against the petitioner are that he remainedunauthorizedly absent in two spells of time, running into monthstogether. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges are proved. TheLabour Court, however, reversed the said finding on the ground thatthe evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the allegation. It moulded the relief, taking into account the fact that the petitioner hasalready attained the age of superannuation.

8. The contention urged on behalf of the respondent, cannot bebrushed aside as irrelevant. The record pertaining to the service of thepetitioner, which discloses that punishments of different kinds wereimposed upon him on proved grounds of indiscipline, ought not tohave been ignored. The other contention is about the delay inapproaching the Labour Court against the order of removal, dated 15-09-1987.

9. Be that as it may, the Labour Court has struck a decentbalance between two extreme situations. It has taken a correctdecision in denying back wages to the petitioner for the periodpreceding the date on which he approached the Labour Court. Though that is not the normal practice, the enormous delay of 9 yearscannot be condoned just like that. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court.

10. Be it at the instance of the petitioner or of respondent, theaward is upheld, and Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.

____________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

December 30, 2010.KTL