Telangana High Court
WP/17223/2002 of The Depot Manager, Vs Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, on 30 December 2013
DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17223 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner seeks for a writ of Certiorari to set aside the award of the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam dated 5.3.2002 in I.D.No. 24 of 2001. The second respondent was an
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
WRITPETITION NO. 17223 OF 2002
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks for a writ of Certiorari to setaside the award of the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam dated 5.3.2002 inI.D.No. 24 of 2001.
The second respondent was an employee working with the petitioner-Corporation as a Conductor. Allegingthat the second respondent indulged himself in cash andticket irregularities on 2.4.1990, a charge sheet was issuedagainst the second respondent. The second respondentoffered his explanation on 23.4.1990. A domestic enquirywas conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his reporton 8.8.1990 holding that the charges were proved againstthe second respondent. On 4.10.1990 final orders werepassed imposing penalty of deferment of annual incrementfor a period of two years with cumulative effect. Thesuspension period of the second respondent was treated as not on duty. The second respondent was un-successfulin his appeal and review petitions. The second respondentconsequently raised I.D.No. 24 of 2001 before the firstrespondent. The learned Chairman of the IndustrialTribunal held that the charges were proved against thesecond respondent. However, the punishment wasreduced to stoppage of one annual increment withoutcumulative effect. The suspension period was treated ason duty. Questioning the award, the present Writ Petitionis laid.
The basic allegation is cash and ticket irregularities.
The incident occurred way back in 1990. The punishmentimposed by the disciplinary authority was deferment ofannual increment for a period of two years with cumulativeeffect and also to treat the period of suspension as not onduty. As rightly considered by the first respondent –Tribunal, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authorityis disproportionate to the misconduct proved against thesecond respondent. The Labour Court modified thepunishment to deferment of one annual increment withoutcumulative effect with a direction to treat the period ofsuspension as on duty. I am satisfied that the penalty imposed by the labour court modifying the order of thedisciplinary authority is justified and does not deserve to beinterfered with. I, therefore, see no merits in the WritPetition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Nocosts. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this WritPetition, shall also stand closed.
______________________________
DR.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKARDATE: 30.12.2013KA