The Depot Manager vs B. Narasaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 4441 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4441 Tel
Judgement Date : 17 December, 2021

Telangana High Court

The Depot Manager vs B. Narasaiah on 17 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                             W.A.No.603 of 2019

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



      The present writ appeal has been filed by the Corporation

against the judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.8339 of 2003.

      The undisputed facts of the case reveal that respondent

No.1/employee was appointed as a Cleaner on 06.02.1976. He was

promoted as a Conductor on 12.12.1980 and on 27.03.1999, a

surprise check took place, in which he was found guilty of cash

and ticket irregularities (misappropriation). A charge sheet was

issued and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted a report on

06.09.1999 holding him guilty of the misconduct. Finally, a show

cause notice was issued on 15.09.1999 and thereafter an order

was passed putting an end to the services of respondent

No.1/employee on 27.09.1999. Respondent No.1/employee

preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 30.03.2000, and

review petition was also dismissed on 09.11.2000. Being aggrieved

by the aforesaid, respondent No.1/employee has approached the

Labour Court by filing a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The Labour

Court took a lenient view, and in exercise of powers conferred

under Section 11-A of the Act, modified the punishment to that of

reinstatement into service as a fresh conductor without continuity

and without back wages. Respondent No.1/employee, though he

was dismissed from service and a lenient view was taken by the

Labour Court, preferred the writ petition and the learned Single

Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the Labour Court was not

having powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment and

the Labour Court could not have modified the punishment order.

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by

the learned Single Judge. Undisputedly, in the present case, an

Industrial Dispute was preferred under Section 2-A(2) of the Act

and the same is reproduced as under:-

"2-A(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government."

The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear

that in case a petition is preferred under Section 2-A(2) of the Act,

it has to be treated as a dispute referred by the appropriate

Government. Section 11-A of the Act reads as under:-

"11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen - Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re- instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:

Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."

The aforesaid statutory provision of law empowers the

Tribunal to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct

reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if

any, as it thinks fit and therefore in exercise of powers conferred

under Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court, by taking a

lenient view, has directed reinstatement of respondent

No.1/employee as a fresh appointee without back wages and

without the benefit of past service. The respondent No.1/employee

has also attained the age of superannuation and the learned Single

Judge has remanded the matter back to the Labour Court.

In the considered opinion of this court, as the Labour Court

was jurisdictionally competent to modify the order of punishment