Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nizamaba ... vs K. Jayaram, Nizamabad Ano
2021 Latest Caselaw 4539 Tel

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


        WRIT APPEAL Nos.960 of 2014 & 1422 of 2012

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




      The present writ appeals are arising out of common

order dated 22.06.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.3923 and 17235

of 2005 by the learned Single Judge.

      W.P.No.3923 of 2005 has been filed by the workman

and   W.P.No.17235    of     2005        has      been        filed      by       the

employer/APSRTC.

      The facts of the case reveal that the workman in

question was serving as a Driver in the services of the Andhra

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and his wife

committed suicide.    A case was registered for the offence

under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

against the workman and the same ended in acquittal. The

workman    was   arrested     by     the      police,       Banswada,             on

13.07.2000 and was released on 20.07.2000.                       However, he

was charge sheeted for not informing the employer about his

arrest and therefore, violating Regulation 26 of the APSRTC

Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

      A detailed and exhaustive enquiry took place in the

matter and the enquiry officer held the workman guilty of the

misconduct and in those circumstances, a punishment of

removal from service was imposed upon him by an order
                                    2




dated 24.01.2001.      The workman thereafter took shelter of

the Labour Court and the Labour Court finally passed an

award in I.D.No.25 of 2003 directing reinstatement of the

workman with continuity of service along with 50% of the

back wages and attendant benefits as well as a punishment of

stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was

inflicted upon him. The workman came up before this Court

by filing a writ petition being aggrieved by the award dated

25.09.2004 passed by the Labour Court and the employer

also came up before this Court being aggrieved by the

reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court.

     The facts of the case reveal that the workman did not

inform his arrest to the employer and the Labour Court,

however, holding that the punishment was disproportionate

to the misconduct committed by the workman, by exercising

powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, has interfered with the quantum of punishment. The

learned Single Judge has further interfered with the quantum

of punishment and directed payment of full back wages. The

order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as

under:

           "The said Regulation itself does not support the
     contention of the management that once it is a misconduct,
     the management has all the power to remove the workman
     from service. Regulation 26 of APSRTC Employees
     (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 reads as under:

           "An employee who may be arrested for any reason
           shall intimate the fact of his arrest as soon as
           possible thereafter to his immediate superior
           officer even though he might subsequently have
           been released on bail. Failure to do so render the
           employee liable for disciplinary action on that
                                    3



           ground alone apart from any action that may be
           taken against him on the basis of the result of the
           criminal proceedings launched against him".

             The first part of the above regulation itself would
     indicate that the management is at liberty to construe the
     nonintimation of the fact of arrest by a delinquent as a
     misconduct and punish him suitably. But, the later part of
     the regulation would indicate that a major penalty of
     removal from service etc. can be imposed only in case of
     conviction of the delinquent by a competent criminal Court
     and not otherwise. Further, no prudent management would
     impose such an ultimate punishment of removal from
     service of its employee simply because he had not intimated
     about his arrest in a criminal case. This is not so a grave
     misconduct requiring removal of the petitioner from service,
     even if it is proved. Only in a case where the delinquent has
     been convicted, a major penalty as contemplated under the
     Regulations can be imposed apart from the punishment
     suffered by the delinquent for the misconduct of not
     intimating about his arrest in criminal case. Therefore,
     imposing of major punishment of removal from service is
     without authority of law and the removal order passed by
     the management is liable to be set aside. The Labour Court
     rightly did so, but while directing reinstatement with
     continuity of service and attendant benefits, granted only
     50% of the backwages, even though the disciplinary
     authority cannot exercise the power of removal of the
     workman from service, for such a minor misconduct.
     However, the petitioner cannot escape for the proved
     misconduct of not intimating about his arrest in a criminal
     case. It appears, he was paid subsistence allowance during
     the period of suspension. Therefore, denying the remaining
     wages from the date of suspension till the date of removal
     i.e. from 4.9.2000 till 24.1.2001 would be suffice. Therefore,
     the Award passed by the Labour Court is required to be
     modified as under:

                   "The respondent-management is directed to

reinstate the petitioner-workman with continuity of service and full backwages and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner is entitled for the subsistence allowance which he was already paid. However, it is made clear that the workman is not entitled for the full wages from the date of suspension till the date of removal i.e. from 4.9.2000 till 24.1.2001. Further, the management shall impose the punishment of deferment of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect".

For the reasons furnished above, W.P. No. 3923 of 2006 filed by the workman is allowed in part and W.P. No. 17235 of 2005 filed by the management is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs."

This Court has carefully gone through the award passed

by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. The factum of non-disclosure of arrest

was established in the departmental enquiry and even before

the Labour Court and the Labour Court having power to

modify the punishment, in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has rightly

interfered with the award, as the punishment was

disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent. It was not a

case of misappropriation nor was it a case of committing

some grave misconduct. As the workman was in jail and was

involved in a criminal case, he has not informed the employer

in time about his arrest though a statement was made in the

departmental enquiry that he has informed the employer

orally.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned

Single Judge in a mechanical manner has further granted

back wages to the workman. The workman has also attained

the age of superannuation and there was an interim order

staying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the

extent full back wages have been granted. In the considered

opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be sub-served,

keeping in view the fact that the workman has already retired,

by upholding the order passed by the Labour Court by which

reinstatement was ordered and he was granted 50% of the

back wages.

Resultantly, both the writ appeals stand disposed of and

the award passed by the Labour Court is upheld.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 22.12.2021 ES