The Depot Manager, vs S. Sathaiah,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3618 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                            AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                              W.A.No.252 of 2019

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



      The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the respondent

No.1/workman was appointed as a Conductor on 28.08.1985. He

was also regularised in the services of the Corporation. He was

absent from duty from 12.08.1991 to 19.08.1991, meaning thereby

only for six days. A charge sheet was issued for six days absence.

A departmental enquiry took place and the mighty Andhra Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation (now Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation) passed an order of removal from service on

24.08.1992. The respondent No.1/workman raised an industrial

dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

and an award was passed on 09.06.2000 setting aside the order of

removal and directing reinstatement with full back wages and

continuity of service. The award was subjected to judicial scrutiny

and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge read as under:-

"4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Labour Court has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court has mechanically passed the award in favour of the 1st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that the petitioner removed the 1st respondent only based on the enquiry report, wherein the charge levelled against the 1st respondent was held as proved. He further contended that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Labour Court, the 1st

respondent was reinstated into service and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. He further contended that the 1st respondent approached the Labour Court four years after dismissal of the appeal and the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the I.D. and the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the I.D. on the ground of delay and laches.

5. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner in respect of delay and laches is concerned, this Court is of the view that there is no limitation for approaching the Labour Court under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that within a reasonable period of time, one can approach the Labour Court. The 1st respondent being class III employee might have taken some considerable time to understand the law and take legal course of action. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the 1st respondent was removed from service, this Court is of the view that the delay of four years in approaching the Labour Court is condonable and the same cannot be put against the 1st respondent. Hence, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel that there is delay and laches in approaching the Labour Court cannot be sustained.

6. Having regard to the other submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the order of removal on the ground of proportionality. The Labour Court taking into account the fact that the first respondent was absent only for a period of six days, observed that the imposition of removal from service for absence of six days was disproportionate to the charge levelled against the 1st respondent. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. There are no merits in this writ petition."

This Court has carefully gone through the award and the

documents on record. Undisputedly, for six days absence the

respondent No.1/workman was removed from service. The

punishment is certainly shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of

respondent No.1/workman. Not only this, a medical certificate

was also produced by him. The regulations also provide that in

case an employee is medically ill, he can proceed on leave and later

on submit medical certificates. However, the fact remains that for

six days absence, the respondent No.1/workman was dismissed

from service. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court,

the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the order of removal

and directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1/workman with

back wages and continuity of service. The learned Single Judge

has also rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Andhra

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (now Telangana State

Road Transport Corporation). This Court does not find any reason

to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court nor the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 19.11.2021 JSU