Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh ... vs Sri.B.Srihari on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.310 of 2009
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated
22.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.32826 of 1998.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent
No.1/employee, who has attained the age of superannuation,
was serving as a conductor and a charge sheet was issued
alleging cash and ticket irregularities. Finally, an order was
passed inflicting the punishment of removal on 28.06.1997
and the respondent No.1/employee has preferred a petition
under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after
appreciating the evidence and especially, taking into account
the statements of the alleged ticketless passengers, who have
not stated against the conductor, has arrived at a conclusion
that no misconduct is made out in the matter. The Labour
Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent
No.1/employee with full back wages and full attendant
benefits and the respondent No.1/employee was reinstated.
The appellant/employer, being aggrieved by the award passed
by the Labour Court dated 26.06.1998 in I.D.No.92 of 1997,
has preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.32826 of 1998 and
the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition
by order dated 22.08.2008. Paragraph 5 of the order passed
by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-
"It is true that the finding of the Labour Court that in
matters of this nature, there shall be human touch and
human approach is necessary on the part of checking
officials or disciplinary authorities, etc. is rather too widely
stated. However, the first two charges clearly appeared to
be unsustainable as the Service Register was closed at
stage '19' and the check was conducted at stage '20' where
the four passengers just entered the bus as per the check
report. So far as third charge is concerned, it also appears
to be not sustainable, and the Labour Court observed that
allowing the four passengers at the entry point hardly
covers a distance of 1½ kilometres. In this view of the
matter, the finding of the Labour Court that the charges
were not proved deserves to be sustained for other reasons
as well. Consequently, the relief granted by the Labour
Court directing reinstatement and back-wages does not
deserve to be interfered with, especially, in view of the fact
that 1st respondent was already reinstated and out of the
back-wages awarded for a total period of one year and four
months, half of the backwages have already been paid and
received by the workman."
This Court has carefully gone through the award passed
by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and keeping in view the evidence of
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge were
justified in passing the orders. Not only this, the most
important aspect of the case is that the respondent
No.1/employee in question has attained the age of
superannuation long back in the year 2009. We are in the
year 2022. Therefore, no further orders are required to be
passed in the present writ appeal for setting aside the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
14.02.2022
vs
