WP/17318/1999 of Ch.Saibabu, Vs The Honble Labour Court-II, on 26 December 2007

ORAL ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award dated 22-8-1998made in I.D.No.92 of 1994 on the file of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Petitioner is workman. Respondent No.2 is Management.

It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in AndhraPradesh State Road Transport Corporation and was attached toNirmal Bus Depot in the month of March,1981. After a span of threemonths, he was transferred to Adilabad Depot. In 1984, he wastransferred from Adilabad Depot to Nizamabad Depot and in 1985 hewas transferred from Nizamabad Depot to Bodhan Depot. While thatbeing so, on 6-3-1987, he was served with a charge sheet stating thathe had produced a false caste certificate stating that he belongs toScheduled Caste (Mala) community, though he belongs to ‘Kamma’caste to secure a job in APSRTC etc. After conducting a detailedenquiry into the matter, he was dismissed from service on 25-5-1987. The appeal filed by him before the appellate authority was alsorejected. Therefore, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, which was numbered as I.D.92 of1994 on the file of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad.

The Management filed a counter before the Labour Courtdenying the allegations made by the petitioner and asserting thatduring the preliminary enquiry, petitioner confessed that he hadproduced a false caste certificate and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Basing upon the EnquiryOfficer’s report and other material, petitioner was dismissed fromservice by the disciplinary authority, which was affirmed by theappellate authority. Before the Labour Court, petitioner filed a memonot disputing the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management. Therefore, the Labour Court posted the matter for arguments. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. Whereas, on behalf of the Management, though none were examined,documents Exs.M1 to M6 were marked. After a detailed considerationof the entire material placed before it, Labour Court came to theconclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Further, it was noticed that the petitioner was recruited under a specialselection for recruitment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribecandidates and he had produced a false caste certificate. Therefore,the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to bedisproportionate to that of the misconduct proved against the petitionerand he is not entitled for any relief; thus, no relief was granted by theLabour Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that noenquiry was conducted and the petitioner was never put on notice asto the falsity of the certificate produced by him. It appears, someenquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Sub-Collector concerned, and they gave a report saying that the castecertificate produced by the petitioner was a fake one and in fact, theirenquiries in the village also revealed that the petitioner belongs to‘Kamma’ caste and not S.C.; therefore, the certificate produced by thepetitioner was a fake one. For all these, there is no basis before theEnquiry Officer or before the Labour Court. As such, the dismissalorder passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and the Award passed by the Labour Court areliable to be set aside.

Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondentsupported the Award made by the Labour Court and stated that this isnot a case of false caste declaration and this is a case of fakecertificate produced by the petitioner and to that extent, the MandalRevenue Officer has enquired in the village and found that thepetitioner has produced a fake certificate, apart from the fact that in theenquiry conducted by them, it is revealed that the petitioner does notbelong to S.C. community. As such, the Labour Court rightly refused tointerfere with the dismissal order passed by the respondent-Management and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and is liableto be dismissed.

I have given my earnest consideration to the respectivesubmissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perusedthe impugned Award and other material made available on record.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent thatthis is a case of production of a fake caste certificate. The MandalRevenue Officer, apart from verifying his own records, made enquiriesin the village and found that there is no such certificate issued by themand the petitioner does not belong to S.C. and he belongs to ‘Kamma’community and in fact, it was admitted by his family members. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in a caseof this nature, unless and until an enquiry is conducted and thecertificate is cancelled, action ought not to have been initiated by theManagement cannot be countenanced, in view of the evidence placedon record under Ex.M6 before this Court. A perusal of Ex.M6 revealsthat the caste certificate said to have been issued in favour of thepetitioner was false and this fact was admitted by the petitioner himself. The caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioner andothers were, in fact, cancelled by an Order dated 27-1-1987. Petitionerhas not made any efforts to challenge the said cancellation of castecertificate. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that nocase has been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the Awardpassed by the Labour Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits andis liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

prk

26-12-2007