HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 18317 OF 2011
ORDER:
The Award dated 11.03.2011 in I.D.No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad is questioned in this Writ Petition. By virtue of the said Award, the relief sought by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Petitioner enrolled as a member of the claimant union. He joined the service of the Corporation as conductor on 23.05.1989 and subsequently, his services were regularized with effect from 18.08.1990. While so, on 20.10.1999, when petitioner was conducting the bus service from Devarakonda to Chandur, a check was exercised at stage No. 9/10, but no irregularities were found, hence, the checking officials did not issue any charge memo. However, a memo dated 10.10.1999 was served on 22.10.1999 alleging cash and ticket irregularities. Without considering the actual facts, the Corporation suspended him from service on 30.11.1999 and after conducting departmental enquiry, punishment of postponement of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as 'not on duty' was 2 imposed. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is stated to have preferred Appeal and Revision and both of them were rejected. Hence, he approached APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, which, in turn, moved an Application under Section 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda. Since the matter was not settled, he concluded the proceedings on 03.09.2009 and sent the factual report vide letter dated 09.09.2009 to the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, who, in turn, was pleased to refer the matter to the Labour Court wherein the said reference was numbered as I.D.No.1 of 2010. The Labour Court passed the Award impugned dismissing the I.D. on the ground that reference has become stale.
3. The Corporation, in its counter, stated that during his service, petitioner was censured 15 times, increments deferred six times, suspended one time. It is stated that alleging cash and ticket irregularities, departmental enquiry was conducted against petitioner and a copy of enquiry report was also supplied to him and he was inflicted with punishment of deferring annual increment for one year with cumulative effect which is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. It is stated that respondent followed the procedure in accordance 3 with the Regulations and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. According to the respondent, petitioner knowing fully-well that appeal and revision preferred by him were rejected, after lapse of eight years, approached this Court, hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud as well as learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri Gaddam Srinivas.
5. The Labour Court vide Award impugned held that management failed to prove all the charges alleged against petitioner, but however, dismissed the Dispute stating that it is not maintainable. The Labour Court observed that subject reference was having its origin in 1999. The checking officials exercised check on 10.10.1999 and punishment was imposed on 30.10.2000. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed on 12.05.2001 so also Revision on 21.06.2003. Subsequent to that, another disciplinary proceedings against the same workman finding him guilty of cash and ticket irregularities was conducted and he was removed from service on 04.02.2005 against which I.D.No. 100 of 2005 was raised. By that time, the workman or Union did not raise the subject dispute. Non- 4 raising of dispute relating to subject matter and raising the subsequent dispute itself indicates that it has become stale, so the government lost jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication, hence, the very reference was bad, as such, the I.D. cannot be maintained. Further, it was observed that the amendment brought by way of Section 2-A(3) impliedly shows that if a dispute is not raised within three years, it becomes stale.
6. As rightly pointed out by Sri Goud, Section 2A(3) of the Act was introduced vide Act No. 24 of 2010 on 18.08.2010 which came into force on 15.09.2010. The said amendment will have no retrospective effect. Hence, it cannot be made applicable to the dispute in question. According to the learned counsel, reference was made under Section 10 of the Act, which authorizes the appropriate government to refer the dispute at any time to a Court for inquiry. It prescribed no limitation. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board 1, wherein it is held that 'there are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval, it is reasonably possible to 1 (2001) 6 SCC 222 5 conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workmen or the union on account of other justified reasons, it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this case, when the government has chosen to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act the High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the ground of delay. Of course, the long delay for making the adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities while molding its releifs. That is a different matter altogether. The High Court has obviously gone wrong in axing down the order of reference made by the government for adjudication. Let the adjudicatory process reach its legal culmination."
He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shahaji v. Executive Engineer, PWD 2 to submit that even if there is delay, if Labour Court comes to the conclusion that termination was illegal, it can suitably mould relief to be granted to workman. In such cases, award of backwages may either not be permitted or curtailed.
In view of the above judgments, since the dispute was referred by the government under Section 10 (1) of the Act, 2 2006 SCC (L&S) 644 6 the Labour Court is wrong in holding that the government lost jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication which dispute became stale, hence, the very reference was bad, as such, the I.D. cannot be maintained.
7. With regard to the charges levelled against petitioner, the Labour Court held that the management failed to prove all the charges. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned Award is liable to be set aside.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the Award dated 11.03.2011 in I.D.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Needless to say that the respondent management shall restore the deferred increments duly treating the suspension period as duty with all consequential benefits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 16th November 2023 ksld