Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sourthern Power Distribution ... vs The Labour Court on 17 October, 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.570 OF 2012
Southern Power Distribution Company
of A.P. Ltd., Rep., by Superintending
Engineer(O), Operation Circle, Nellore,
and another.
..Appellants
Versus
The Labour Court,
Rep., by Presiding Officer,
Guntur, and another.
...Respondents
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:17.10.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
1. This writ appeal would call in question the order dated
22.06.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12434 of
2008.
2. The facts in brief are that while the writ petitioner-Syed Amjad
Ali (respondent No.2 in this appeal) was working as Revenue Cashier in
A.P. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Nellore, on certain
allegations, he was charge sheeted and after enquiry, he was
HCJ & DVSS,J
dismissed from service by proceedings dated 16.07.1996 and in the
subsequent appeal, he was unsuccessful and hence, he raised an
industrial dispute vide I.D.No.40 of 2003 on the file of the Labour
Court, Guntur. On 31.12.2007, the Labour Court passed an award
holding that the charge of misappropriation is not proved, and ordered
for compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner from service.
Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.12434 of 2008 had been preferred.
3. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside
the award of the Labour Court holding that as the impugned order of
punishment has been passed under the regulations made under
Section 79 (c ) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which have no
legal sanctity as they were neither notified by the Government as
required under Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act nor certified by the Certifying Officer under Section 5 of
the said Act, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P.S.E.
Board v. Hari Shanker reported in 1978 LAB I.C.1657 and the
judgment of the single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of Divisional Electrical Engineer
(Operations), A.P. Transco Limited v. Labour Court, Guntur,
reported in 2011 (3) ALT 530, the impugned order cannot be
sustained.
HCJ & DVSS,J
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the case at
hand, the Labour Court also conducted an independent enquiry and
even though standing orders were not notified or certified, they would
have no impact on the legality of the order of punishment.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner
(respondent No.2 herein) would submit that this matter is squarely
covered by the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh Divisional Electrical
Engineer (Operations), A.P. Transco Limited v. Labour Court,
Guntur, and the same has been conceded by the learned standing
counsel for the appellants before the writ Court as mentioned in
paragraph No.5 of the order under appeal.
6. Even though there is a concession made by the learned standing
counsel for the appellants before the learned single Judge, we have
independently examined the correctness of the impugned order
rendered by the learned single Judge. We find no reason to disagree
with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned
order based on the law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
U.P.S.E. Board v. Hari Shanker and the judgment of the learned
single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), A.P.
Transco Limited.
HCJ & DVSS,J
7. Undisputedly, the regulation under which the appellants
proceeded to conduct enquiry against the writ petitioner was neither
notified by the Government as required under Section 13-B of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act nor certified by the
Certifying Officer under Section 5 of the said Act. If that be so, the
learned single Judge had no other option except to follow the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.E. Board v.
Hari Shanker and the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations) referred to
supra. We find no merit in this appeal.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All the
pending miscellaneous applications including I.A.No.1 of 2015
(W.A.M.P.No.736 of 2015) shall stand dismissed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Nn
HCJ & DVSS,J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.570 OF 2012
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Dt:17.10.2022
Nn
