WP/1489/2004 of The Asst. Mechanical Engineer (Tyres) APSRTC, HYD Zone, Vs Sri K. Satyanarayana, S/o. K. Swamy, E.43558, on 30 December 2010

ORDER:

The 1[st] respondent (for short ‘respondent’) is a Tyre Mechanicin Achampet Depot of APSRTC. On 12-11-1999, the Security Guardof the Depot found some tyre patches in the dickey of the Scooter ofthe respondent. Alleging that the respondent resorted to acts of theft,the 1[st] petitioner issued a charge sheet on 29-11-1999. Therespondent filed his explanation, stating that somebody else may haveput the patches in his Scooter and that he is not guilty of the charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed and taking the report submitted by himinto account, the 1[st] petitioner passed an order, dated 30-03-2000,directing removal of the respondent from the service.

2. After exhausting departmental remedies, the respondent filedI.D. No.192 of 2001 before the Labour Court – I, Hyderabad, underSection 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’). Through its award, dated 19-08-2003, the Labour Court has set asidethe order of removal, directed reinstatement of the respondent intoservice without back wages and attendant benefits, but with continuityof service. Petitioners feel aggrieved by the award.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedcounsel for the respondent.

4. The charges framed against the respondent read as under:“1. For having committed the theft of tyre patches (BP-4 patches E-9 and B.P-6 patches E.14) materialon 12-11-1999 at about 13-45 hrs. which ismisconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC (Conduct)Regulations 1963.“1. For having committed the theft of tyre patches (BP-4 patches E-9 and B.P-6 patches E.14) materialon 12-11-1999 at about 13-45 hrs. which ismisconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC (Conduct)Regulations 1963.

2. For having left the work premises without permission from the shift supervisor though yourduty hours were upto 15.00 hrs. on that day which ismisconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTCEmployees (Conduct) Reg.1963.”

5. The respondent did not deny that the tyre patches were foundin his scooter. The explanation offered by him was that somebodyelse may have put the patches in the dickey of the Scooter. Not onlythe Enquiry Officer and the 1[st] petitioner, but also the Labour Court didnot find any truth in that plea. The Labour Court has invoked itsjurisdiction under Section 11A of the ID Act and granted the relief asindicated above.

6. Charge of theft is serious in its nature, irrespective of the valueof the goods that are said to have been stolen. The incidents wouldonly indicate that the concerned employee is prone to commit suchacts and what is found is only one of them. The Labour Court alsotook the view that the explanation offered by the respondent cannot beaccepted. While granting relief in exercise of power under Section11A of the ID Act, the Labour Court ought to have been cautious, inprotecting the interests of the Corporation, even while providinglivelihood to the 1[st] respondent. This Court is of the view that the reliefof continuity of service can be confined to the one for terminal benefits.

7. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the awardof the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent shall be reinstatedinto service without back wages and attendant benefits. The relief ofthe continuity of service shall be limited for purpose of calculating theretirement benefits. In case, this modification warrants reduction of payscale of the respondent, the petitioners shall not be entitled to recoverthe difference of pay, on that account. There shall be no order as tocosts.

December 30, 2010.

KTL

____________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J