The Depot Manager, vs N.P.Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 530 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 530 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

The Depot Manager, vs N.P.Reddy on 10 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                           W.A.No.1064 of 2017

JUDGMENT:     (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


     This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11755 of 2007

dt.25-04-2017.


      2.   Heard Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellant-Corporation and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned

counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that the 1st

respondent was employed as a driver with the appellant-

Corporation and he had indulged in a fatal accident because

of his rash and negligent driving on 13-01-2002 and in the

said accident, one pedestrian was killed on the spot. The

disciplinary authority has construed the said act of the 1st

respondent as a mis-conduct and initiated disciplinary

proceedings by issuing charge sheet on 15-02-2002.

Thereafter, the 1st respondent has filed a detailed explanation

denying the charges. Later, the disciplinary authority, not

being satisfied with the explanation of the 1st respondent,

conducted detailed enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer

and in the enquiry, the charges levelled against the 1st

respondent were proved and based upon the enquiry officer's

report, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.1512 of 2018

of removal vide proceedings dt.15-07-2002 which were also

confirmed by the appellate authority on 06-10-2003.

4. It has been further contended by the appellant

that the 1st respondent has challenged the orders of removal

before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court,

Hyderabad, by filing I.D.No.18 of 2004 under Section 2-A(2) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Tribunal was

pleased to pass an award in favour of the 1st respondent vide

orders dt.15-06-2006 and was pleased to set aside the orders

of removal and directed the appellant to reinstate the 1st

respondent with continuity of service with 50% back-wages.

The appellant-Corporation had challenged the orders of the

Tribunal by filing W.P.No.11755 of 2007 before this Court and

this Court, without appreciating any of the contentions raised

by the appellant, had dismissed the Writ Petition vide orders

dt.25-04-2017. Challenging the same, the present Writ

Appeal is filed.

5. It has been contended by the appellant that the 1st

respondent had indulged in a fatal accident resulting the

death of one pedestrian and the disciplinary authority had

imposed a punishment of removal based upon the enquiry

officer's report. The learned Single Judge at least ought to

have modified the award of the Tribunal by setting aside the

back-wages portion of the award.

                                  3                             HCJ & AKS,J
                                                         W.A.No.1512 of 2018




       6.    The   learned   counsel    for   the    appellant       had

contended that admittedly, in the instant case, the 1st

respondent was guilty of rash and negligent driving of the

bus. Learned counsel for the appellant had also informed the

Court that the 1st respondent was reinstated into service in

pursuance of the award of the Tribunal and the 1st

respondent also attained the age of superannuation.

Learned counsel for the appellant had therefore contended

that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by

setting aside that portion of the award of the Tribunal where

50% back-wages were paid in favour of the 1st respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent had

contended that the Tribunal has rightly passed an award in

favour of the 1st respondent in exercise of its power under

Section 11-A of the Act and the Tribunal had interfered with

the punishment of removal imposed on the 1st respondent

holding that the punishment of removal is excessive and the

1st respondent was reinstated into service in pursuance of the

award of the Tribunal and the 1st respondent also retired from

service. Now the only issue remained is about payment of

back-wages. The award of the Tribunal has been

implemented by reinstating the 1st respondent into service.

No interference is called for and therefore the Writ Appeal be

dismissed accordingly.

                                4                             HCJ & AKS,J
                                                       W.A.No.1512 of 2018




      8.     This   Court   having      considered     the        rival

submissions of the parties is of the considered view that the

Labour Court has rightly passed orders in favour of the 1st

respondent in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the

Act. However, the Tribunal ought not to have granted 50% of

the back-wages as the disciplinary authority has imposed

punishment of removal for the proven misconduct in the

enquiry and this Court having noticed that the 1st respondent

was reinstated into service in pursuance of the award of the

Tribunal and the 1st respondent also retired from service,

ends of justice would be met if only the award of the Tribunal

is modified to the extent of granting 25% back-wages instead

of granting 50% back-wages. This direction is given only to