WA/1349/2006 of K.S.S.Valli Saheb, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep.by its Chairman and on 28 December 2006

Conclusion

:: J U D G M E N T::

Counsel for the appellant : Mrs.B.MalleswariCounsel for the respondents : Sri V.Padmanabha Rao for Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy

Per G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 28-1-2004 passed bythe learned Single Judge, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filedby the appellant for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to give him the benefit of continuity of service with full back wages and otherconsequential benefits.

A perusal of the record shows that while he was working asConductor in Kurnool Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State RoadTransport Corporation, a regular departmental enquiry was institutedagainst the appellant on six charges including the one casting adversereflection on his integrity. The enquiry officer submitted the report withthe finding that the charges levelled against the delinquent areproved. The competent authority accepted the enquiry report andissued notice dated 7-4-1975 to the appellant proposing hisremoval from service. After considering his reply, the competentauthority passed order dated 31-7-1975, whereby heconfirmed the proposed punishment. Industrial dispute raised by theappellant, which was registered as I.D.No.10 of 1991 resulted in thepassing of award dated 3-9-1994, whereby Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur approved the action taken by the employer. However, in the writ petition filed by him, which was registered as WritPetition No.10442 of 1997, a Division Bench of this Court modified theorder of punishment by ordering reinstatement of the appellant withoutback wages and continuity of service. The operative part of orderdated 12-8-1997 passed by the Division Bench reads as under:

“Perused the award. The approach of the Labour Court inholding the guilt of the petitioner-workman is quite correct andwe are in agreement with its finding in this respect. However,we differ from the view taken by the Labour Court to imposethe punishment of removal which we feel is severe and is notin consonance with the gravity of the offence. Hence, it needsto be modified to the one of reinstatement without back wagesand without continuity of service. We, therefore, orderreinstatement of the petitioner into service without back wagesand without continuity of service.”

In compliance of the direction given by the Division Bench, theappellant was taken back in service without the benefit of continuity ofservice and back wages.

The appellant did not challenge the order of the Division Benchby filing an appeal before the Supreme Court, but after a gap of almostseven years, he filed Writ Petition No.918 of 2004 for quashing theaction of the respondents to appoint him as fresh Conductor and alsofor issue of a mandamus to them to give him the benefit of continuity ofservice and full back wages with all other attendant benefits.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition byobserving that the same was wholly misconceived.

We have heard Mrs. B.Malleswari, learned counsel for theappellant and perused the record. We are in complete agreement withthe learned Single Judge that the writ petition filed by the appellantwas misconceived. Not only this, we are of the considered view thatthe appeal is a frivolous and vexatious piece of litigation, whichdeserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Although we are not sitting in appeal over order dated 12-8-1997 passed by the coordinate bench in Writ Petition No.10442 of1997, we cannot resist the temptation of observing that the directiongiven for reinstatement of the appellant was contrary to the settled law. By that time, the Supreme Court had consistently ruled that the HighCourt cannot lightly interfere with the discretion exercised by theemployer to impose the particular punishment on the delinquentemployee.

It is most unfortunate that instead of feeling satisfied with whatcould be termed as compassionate approach adopted by the HighCourt, the appellant tried to drag the respondents in litigation by resurrecting his claim for back wages and continuity of service and thattoo after a gap of seven years.

In our opinion, the learned Single Judge did not commit any errorby dismissing the writ petition. He could not have, in the face of orderdated 12-8-1997 passed in Writ Petition No.10442 of 1997, directedthe respondents to give to the appellant the benefit of continuity ofservice and back wages. Any such direction would have amounted tomodification of the order passed by the Division Bench and this couldnot have been done by the learned Single Judge.

We are further of the view that the appellant, who took advantageof the order passed by the Division Bench and accepted the order ofreinstatement, does not have the locus to seek a direction forregularisation of the intervening period and for payment of backwages.

With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. For filing afrivolous appeal, the disposal of which has consumed substantial timeof the Court, we saddle the appellant with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Theamount of costs shall be deposited by him with the Andhra PradeshState Legal Services Authority within a period of two months fromtoday. The Member Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State LegalServices Authority is directed to inform the Court in writing whether ornot the appellant has deposited the amount of costs within the timespecified in this order so that if it becomes necessary the Court mayissue a direction for recovery of the amount from his salary.

As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP.No.2861 of 2006filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed.

G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

Before the aforesaid judgment could be recorded and signed byus, Mrs. B.Malleswari, Advocate for the appellant appeared andprayed that his client may be permitted to withdraw the appeal.

Though unusual, we accept the request of the learned counselbecause Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel appearing for therespondents says that he does not have any objection.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

ARS