Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Depot Manager, Apsrtc vs P. Lakshumaiah, Kadapa Dist. Anr on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.465 OF 2012
(Through physical mode)
The Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Kadapa Depot, Y.S.R. District.
..Appellant
Versus
P. Lakshumaiah, Conductor,
S/o P. Subbaiah, R/o Korlakunta (P&V),
Obulavaripally Mandal, Kadapa District
and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. N. Srihari, Standing Counsel.
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. V. Padmanabha Rao
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:06.07.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This writ appeal would call in question the legality, validity and
correctness of the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by learned single Judge
allowing W.P.No.11022 of 2002 preferred by workman (respondent No.1
herein) with a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to reinstate
the workman into service with continuity of service and without back
wages.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, which are relevant for the
purpose of decision of the present appeal, are that the workman/writ
petitioner was working as conductor in the appellant-Corporation in
Kadapa District, prior to his termination. While he was on duty in the bus
on 08.06.1997 on the route Pendlimarri -Kadapa, a surprise check was
HCJ & DVSSS,J
conducted by the Regional Enforcement Squad, Kadapa, wherein it was
alleged that certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. The
workman was issued a charge memo, for which he submitted explanation,
but being dissatisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was conducted,
wherein the workman was found guilty and was terminated from service
by order dated 07.01.1998. The appeal and review filed by the workman
were rejected, against which, he raised Industrial Dispute before the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, vide I.D.No.313 of 1998, which was
decided against him on 19.09.2001. Aggrieved by the order of the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the above I.D., the workman filed
the writ petition.
3. The only ground upon which the writ Court allowed the writ
petition preferred by the workman is that the charge of re-issuance of
tickets to a batch of passengers, which tickets were already issued in the
previous trip, and collection of fare, is based on perverse findings
inasmuch as the workman has been denying the charge from the very
inception and the management witness also deposed in his cross-
examination that during the course of check, the officials have not found
any unconnected or old tickets and that the workman has specifically
stated that during the check, he has neither issued the tickets nor
collected the amount. Based on these admissions of the management
witness in the cross-examination, the learned single Judge has recorded a
finding that the workman has not re-issued the tickets, which were issued
in the earlier trip and also has not collected the amount, as alleged in the
charge memo. It is recorded by the learned single Judge that the findings
of the enquiry officer, without noticing the crucial admission of the
management witness-TTI in the cross-examination, are perverse and the
HCJ & DVSSS,J
Tribunal also being oblivious of this material evidence wrongly confirmed
the findings of the enquiry officer, which are liable to be set aside.
4. Mr. N. Srihari, learned standing counsel appearing for the
appellant, urged before us that the finding recorded by the learned single
Judge is perverse inasmuch as not only the disciplinary authority but also
the Labour Court recorded a finding about the guilt of the workman and
therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have set aside those
findings in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
5. It is pertinent to note that ordinarily the writ Court should not set
aside the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority or by the
Labour Court. It is equally well-settled that if the findings are perverse or
if the findings are not born out of the record or the same have been
recorded ignoring the material piece of evidence, the writ Court can
interfere in the matter.
6. The learned single Judge has referred to the judgments rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and
Rubber Co. of India (PVT) Ltd., reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 and in
M/S Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Others
reported in (1976) 1 SCC 518, wherein principles have been laid down
as to the interference with the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry
against an employee.
7. On perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious that
nothing has been submitted before this Court to demonstrate as to how
the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse. The learned
single Judge has specifically referred to the relevant part of the cross-
HCJ & DVSSS,J
examination of the management witness. However, the deposition of the
management witness has not been placed before us so as to demonstrate
that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse.
8. The material on record would indicate that the workman was
removed from service on 07.01.1998. The writ petition was preferred in
the year 2002, which came to be allowed by order dated 13.07.2011.
This writ appeal has been filed in the year 2012 and is pending since last
more than about ten years. It is informed that during pendency of this
appeal, the workman has already been reinstated into service and he was
promoted to the next higher post, however, his promotion was
subsequently withdrawn on account of pendency of this writ appeal.
9. Considering that no material was placed before us to demonstrate
that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is perverse and in
view of the fact that the workman has already been reinstated into service
and he has been working for the last ten years, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending
miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Nn
