THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.14201 OF 2003
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Labour Court in not awarding the attendant benefits and back wages while ordering reinstatement of service and instead imposing the punishment of deference of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the respondent to pay back-wages since 1999 and also set aside the major penalty of deference of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 03.03.1985 in the respondent corporation and while he was working as Depot Secretary in NMU in the BHEL Depot on 24.06.1997, there was an altercation between him and one D.V.K. Rao, driver of BHEL Depot. Mr. D.V.K. Rao allegedly abused the petitioner in the presence of Depot Manager, BHEL. Complaints were filed against both the petitioner and the driver D.V.K. Rao and the petitioner was transferred to Ibrahimpatnam depot and was issued a charge sheet on 12.08.1997 for the said misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that D.V.K. Rao, driver, is Secretary of the employees' union in the depot and due to union rivalry, the 2 driver scolded him in filthy language and thus altercation has taken place. However, without considering the petitioner's explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed who held the charges to be proved and subsequently the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner raised a dispute with the Labour Court in I.D.No.132 of 1999 and the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, passed an award on 05.04.2002 setting aside the removal order and ordered the petitioner to be reinstated into service with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. The punishment was also modified to that of withholding of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the denial of relief to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Pradeep Kumar, submitted that the Labour Court has imposed double punishment on the petitioner, i.e., not allowing the back wages and further imposing withholding of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It is also submitted that even after reinstatement orders, the respondent did not fix the petitioner's pay salary as per 1993 and 1999 PRC Scales and did not add any notional increase to his scale of pay in spite of the direction of the Labour Court to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service. In support of his contentions that the altercation between the employees would not amount to misbehaviour and removal from service for such an action is not justifiable, he placed reliance upon the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in 3 the case of P. Laxmaiah Vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and another1. In support of his contention that the petitioner should be granted relief by modifying the punishment of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect to that of deference of 3 annual grade increments without cumulative effect, he placed reliance upon the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of G. Pentaiah Vs. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Pargi Depot., RR District and another2.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri N. Praveen Reddy, on the other hand, submitted that the contention of the petitioner that disciplinary action is taken only against him and not against D.V.K. Rao is not correct. He submitted that disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the said employee and he was also removed from service and was reinstated into service by virtue of the award of the Labour Court. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. P.Gunasekharan3 and U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar4.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record as well as the judgments relied upon by both the parties, it is seen that the petitioner's major punishment of removal from service 1 2016 (6) ALD 403 2 W.P.No.16966 of 2001 dt.28.11.2017 3 (2015) 2 SCC 610 4 (2008) 1 SCC 115 4 has been modified to that of deferment of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Since the petitioner was not granted back wages and attendant benefits and has thus suffered monetary loss and since the petitioner herein also has retired from service, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment further to deferment of 3 annual grade increments without cumulative effect.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Dt.30.11.2021 Svv