WP/736/2012 of The Depot Manager, APSRTC Banganapalli Depot Vs P.Rajasekhar on 31 December 2019

ORDER:-

1) Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner appearing for A.P.S.R.T.C., Sri M.Subhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

2) In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the Award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (hereinafter called “Tribunal”) in ID.No.204 of 2008. According to the workman/1[st] respondent herein, who was initially appointed as Driver in the year 1986, due to pain in the leg, he did not attend duties from 31.10.1999 to 07.11.1999. The disciplinary authority initiated the disciplinary proceedings and issued a charge memo framing the following charges:

1) For having absented unauthorisedly for your duties w.e.f 31.10.1999 to 07.11.1999 without prior permission or intimation to your Supervisors, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 31.10.1999 to 07.11.1999 without prior permission or intimation to your Supervisors, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

2) For having failed to perform the parking duty and absented unauthorizedly for your duties from 31.10.1999 to 07.11.1999 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. absented unauthorizedly for your duties from 31.10.1999 to 07.11.1999 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

3) In response to the said charge sheet, workman submitted an explanation. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer, who submitted a report and basing on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, a show cause notice was given, proposing the punishment of removal from service. After unsuccessfully availing the remedies of appeal and review before the departmental authorities, 1[st] respondent herein filed I.D.No. 204 of 2008, under the provisions of Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said Industrial Dispute was resisted by the petitioner management by filing counter. The parties to the Industrial Dispute did not adduce any oral evidence. On behalf of the workman/1[st] respondent, Ex.W.1 was marked and on behalf of the Corporation, Exs.M.1 to M.16 were marked. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, framed following points for consideration.

1. Whether the enquiry is conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice? principles of natural justice?

2. Whether the order of removal passed against the petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct? petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct?

3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

4) Eventually, the Tribunal, by way of an Award dated 07.12.2010, had set aside the order of removal, passed by the disciplinary authority, dated 14.06.2000 and the orders of the appellate and reviewing authorities and directed to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without backwages, while directing to defer two annual increments with cumulative effect after reinstating into service.

5) According to the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner management, the impugned Award is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that having regard to the gravity of the charges framed against the workman, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the Tribunal in interfering with the order of punishment.

6) On the contrary, while strongly supporting the impugned Award, it is maintained by the learned counsel for 1[st] respondent workman, Sri M.Subhan, that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned Award and in the absence of the same, the Award passed by the Tribunal is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

7) It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the workman retired from the service three years back.

8) The disciplinary authority initiated the enquiry, on the ground that 1[st] respondent workman abstained from duties unauthorizedly from 31.10.1999 to 07.11.1999. A perusal of the Award impugned clearly shows that the Tribunal categorically recorded a finding that since the workman submitted the leave letter to the union leaders, it cannot be said that the workman unauthorisedly abstained. Obviously taking into consideration, the nature of charges and in exercise of its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal modified the punishment by way of the impugned Award.

9) In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in doing so, having regard to the nature of the charges framed against the workman. It is a settled principle of law that unless the order/action impugned is patently perverse or suffers from jurisdictional infirmity, invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari is impermissible. The petitioner is unsuccessful in showing the existence of such contingencies in the case on hand.

10) For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

11) Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

__________________________

JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

Date: 31.12.2019 RJS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

WRIT PETITION No.736 OF 2012

Date: 31.12.2019

RJS