The Depot Manager, Warangal Dist. vs G.S. Narayana, Nalgonda Dist. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 861 Tel

                                          1



          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                                        AND

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                              WRIT APPEAL No.743 of 2009

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



01.           This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order

dated 25.01.2008 passed in W.P.No.18470 of 2005 by the

learned Single Judge.

02.           Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for the appellant-Corporation, learned Government

Pleader for Labour appearing for the 2nd respondent and

Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent-workman.

03. It is the case of the appellant-Corporation that

the 1st respondent was employed as a Conductor and while

conducting the bus on 04.04.2002, he had indulged in cash

and ticket irregularities. The disciplinary authority construed

the same as a misconduct and after conducting a detailed

enquiry and for the proven misconduct, has imposed the

punishment of removal from service vide order, dated

14.08.2002. Challenging the same, the 1st respondent has

preferred I.D.No.86 of 2002 before the 2nd respondent-

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, under

Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 2nd

respondent vide Award, dated 04.02.2005 while setting aside

the removal order dated 14.08.2002, directed the

Corporation to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with

continuity of service as well as back wages, however,

imposed the punishment of postponement of one annual

increment with cumulative effect. Challenging the said

Award, the Corporation filed W.P.No.18470 of 2005 before

this Court. This Court vide order, dated 25.01.2008 modified

the award dated 04.02.2005 passed in I.D.No.86 of 2002 as

follows:

"In the result, the removal order passed on 14.08.2002 is set aside and the respondent-workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of back

wages. However, it is made clear that the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is set aside."

Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single

Judge, the Corporation filed the present Writ Appeal.

04. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had

contended that both the 2nd respondent as well as the learned

Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the charges

levelled against the 1st respondent were proved and hence,

the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of

removal against the 1st respondent based on the proven

misconduct in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the Award

passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the order passed by

the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside.

05. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent

had contended that in pursuance of the Award passed by the

2nd respondent, the 1st respondent was reinstated into service

and he also retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation and insofar as 25% of back wages awarded

by the learned Single Judge are concerned, the 1st respondent

has withdrawn 12½ % of back wages and the 1st respondent

is willing to forego balance 12½ % back wages and let the

Award passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the order

passed by the learned Single Judge be confirmed.

06. Having considered the rival submissions made by

the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the

considered view that the 2nd respondent has rightly set aside

the removal order and the same was rightly confirmed by the

learned Single Judge. Since the 1st respondent was reinstated

into service in pursuance of the award passed by the 2nd

respondent and he also retired from service, and is willing to

forego 12½ % back wages, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the same.

07. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the

order dated 25.01.2008 in W.P.No.18470 of 2005 passed by

the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the

respondent-workman is entitled to be reinstated into service

with 12½ % back wages as the 1st respondent has withdrawn

12½ % back wages. The order passed by the learned Single

Judge in respect of remaining all other aspects is confirmed.

No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

Date: .02.2022 rkk