The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, ... vs Depot. Secretary, Apsrtc, Kuppam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2927 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.16164 OF 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari declaring the award made in I.D.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman- cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ananthapur, as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same by calling for records relating to the said award dated 01.06.2011 and to pass such other orders."

2. A charge was framed against the unofficial 1 st

respondent herein alleging that while the 1st respondent was

performing his duties in the bus on bus bearing registration

No.AP 10Z 126 on 02.01.2004 on route Pakala-Chittoor and the

vehicle driven by the 1st respondent met with an accident.

Basing upon the said accident, a charge was framed against the

1st respondent herein and sought for explanation and

accordingly the 1st respondent has submitted his explanation.

Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the 1st

respondent, a regular enquiry was conducted and the 1st

respondent was removed from the service.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent has

preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate

authority has modified the order of removal in the place of

revival order and ordered for fresh appointment to the 1st

respondent herein.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent has

approached the reviewing authority and the reviewing authority

has further modified the order fresh appointment in lieu of fresh

appointment, the reviewing authority has passed orders by

reduction of payment to minimum in the time scale of Driver

Grade-II for a period of two years with cumulative effect, besides

stating that the period of date of removal as on duty on

reinstatement on Sri Md.Baig, E.No.508897, Driver, APSRTC,

vide orders dated 16.08.2005 is justified. Aggrieved by the said

reduction of the payment of pay to the minimum, the 1st

respondent herein filed I.D.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Anantapur (hereinafter called, „the Labour Court‟),

under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, by order dated 01.06.2011, has

set aside the order of reviewing authority and allowed the

application and directed to restore the deferred time scale

without punishment on notional basis from 16.08.2005 and also

held that the 1st respondent herein is entitled for monetary

benefits from the date of passing of the award.

5. Assailing the said order in the said I.D.No.122 of

2008 dated 01.06.2011, the present Writ Petition came to be

filed on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to

re-appraise the evidence and the learned counsel appearing for

the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation-petitioner

herein has relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. Kerala State

Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. and others 1 for the proposition

that the Labour Court cannot re-appraise the evidence adduced

(2006) 5 SCC 201

in the enquiry and also cannot sit in appeal over the decision of

the employer in imposing punishment.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent

herein, who is the employee, would submit that the enquiry

authority has not conducted the enquiry as per law and not

assigned valid reasons and the order of termination is without

any basis and the Labour Court has got power to re-appraise the

evidence and relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court

in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. 2,

wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal can re-

appraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry in order to satisfy

itself whether the misconduct alleged against the workman is

established and even the said judgment has been followed in the

citation relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e.,

South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union's case (1 supra).

7. As rightly contested by the learned counsel for the 1 st

respondent herein, the Industrial Tribunal can re-appraise the

evidence when it finds that the enquiry is perverse and without

(1973) 1 SCC 813

any basis. The Industrial Tribunal has categorically given a

finding basing upon the record that the accident was occurred

when the students, who were waiting for the bus, jointly entered

into the bus and the deceased girl and the other students

quarreled each other and in that process, the girl fallen down

and received injuries.

8. Section 11A was incorporated in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, under the said Section, power is vested with

Labour Courts/ Tribunals to interfere with the order of discharge

or dismissal (if it finds that the termination of employment was

not justified) and this Section came to be considered depth in

Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.'s case

(2 supra). The Tribunal can set aside or modify the order when,

(a) if it finds that the order of the inquiring authority is for want

of bona fides, (b) it is a case of victimization or unfair labour

practice or violation of principles of natural justice, or (c) there is

a basic error on facts and (d) there is a perverse finding on the

materials.

9. The enquiry authority has observed in the enquiry

report in the following manner: "that the 1st respondent herein

without entering into the bus stand and he has tried to keep the

vehicle outside the bus stand due to which the passengers failed

to board the bus and the bus was moving, in such situation the

girl fallen under the tyre and the accident occurred". The finding

of the inquiring authority is contrary to the finding of the Labour

Court. The Labour Court has given its finding considering the

evidence of the witnesses and the finding of the inquiring

authority is without any basis and perverse. Hence, as rightly

contested by the 1st respondent herein, the finding of the

inquiring authority is without any basis. Hence, the Labour

Court has rightly considered the evidence of the witnesses and

held that there is no fault on the part of the 1st respondent. As

such, the order of the inquiring authority is perverse and the

Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of the reviewing

authority and directed to restore the deferred time scale without

any punishment on notional basis from 16.08.2005. Hence, I

found no reasons to interfere with the orders of the Labour Court

in I.D.No.122 of 2008 dated 01.06.2011.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 08.05.2023 siva

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.16164 OF 2015

Date: 08.05.2023

siva