Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager vs A.Sankar on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL No.416 of 2020
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. Appellant before us is the Depot Manager of
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Karimnagar-I
Depot.
3. The appeal has been preferred against the final
order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing the Writ Petition No.2053 of 2010 filed by the
respondent workman.
4. At the relevant point of time, respondent was
working as a driver in the establishment of the appellant.
On 21.09.1998 respondent was charge sheeted by the
2 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.416 of 2020
appellant on the ground that because of his negligence and
lack of anticipation, the vehicle which was being driven by
him met with an accident causing injury to a boy. It
appears that respondent did not respond to the charge
sheet. Appellant thereafter passed order dated 24.11.1998
imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment
for a period of one year which would have cumulative effect.
Appeal filed by the respondent was rejected and the penalty
was affirmed. It further appears that respondent pursued
his matter with the Workers Union who made a complaint
before the concerned Conciliation Officer. However,
attempted conciliation failed whereafter Conciliation Officer
submitted failure report to the appropriate Government.
Appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute to
the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani
vide reference order dated 07.02.2007. The same was
registered as Industrial Dispute No.4 of 2007. Industrial
Tribunal by the Award dated 20.12.2007 affirmed the
penalty imposed on the respondent. Thereafter the related
writ petition came to be filed.
3 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.416 of 2020
5. Learned Single Judge noted that the penalty
imposed was a major penalty, but the same was imposed
without conducting a domestic enquiry. Relying upon a
decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v.
State of Punjab1, learned Single Judge set aside the award
as well as the punishment imposed on the respondent
holding that respondent would be entitled to all
consequential benefits.
6. In the appeal before us, it is submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that there was enormous
delay of seven years by the respondent and on the ground of
delay, claim of the respondent was rightly dismissed by the
Industrial Tribunal. Learned Single Judge was not justified
in overlooking this aspect. In this connection, he has
referred to an order passed by this Court on 03.08.2021.
1 1991 Supplement 1 SCC 504
4 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.416 of 2020
6.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has also
placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in
Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department2.
7. However, Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel
for the respondent supports the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and contends that no interference is called for.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made
at the bar and perused the materials on record.
9. This Court by order dated 03.08.2021 had called
upon learned counsel for the parties to submit list of dates
and events to examine the appeal, more so in the context of
the contention of the appellant that there was delay and
laches on the part of the respondent. It is submitted that
appellant has thereafter filed a memo dated 19.07.2022
furnishing the list of events, which we have perused.
10. The incident in question took place on
29.12.1997. Charge sheet was submitted nine (09) months
2 (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 1
5 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.416 of 2020
thereafter on 21.09.1998 and punishment was imposed on
24.11.1998. Departmental appeal was preferred by the
respondent on 25.01.2000 which was dismissed on
19.06.2000. A review petition was filed by the respondent
which was rejected on 12.10.2001. Thereafter, as per the
list of events filed by the appellant, reference was made by
the appropriate Government under Section 10(i)(c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal on
07.02.2007. We find that the list of dates is incomplete in
as much as prior to making of a reference by the
appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal there is
conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. If
conciliation proceedings fail, the Conciliation Officer
submits failure report to the Government. Based on such
report, the appropriate Government takes a decision either
to make a reference or not to make a reference under
Section 10(i)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The list
of dates is silent as regards the conciliation proceedings
which is an integral part of settlement of industrial dispute.
6 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.416 of 2020
11. We have a case of an individual workman who
was imposed penalty. His case was taken up by the Union.
After conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was
referred to the appropriate Government, neither the
workman nor the Union had any role to play in making of
reference by the appropriate Government. If there is any
delay, the delay is because of the appropriate Government.
However, we cannot come to any determinative conclusion
as to whether there is delay or not because appellant has
not placed before us the material facts pertaining to
conciliation proceedings and submission of failure report by
the Conciliation Officer.
12. Reverting back to the order of the learned Single
Judge, we find that learned Single Judge on a perusal of the
materials on record found that a major punishment was
imposed on the respondent without conducting enquiry.
The law on this point is very clear as has been laid down by
the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill (1 supra).
Learned Single Judge also noted that once reference was
7 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.416 of 2020
made by the appropriate Government, the Industrial
Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the industrial dispute
on the ground of delay and laches. As a matter of fact,
learned Single Judge has categorically returned a finding
that there was no delay and laches on the part of the
workman. We have no material before us to dislodge such a
finding returned by the learned Single Judge as because
appellant has not provided the material particulars
pertaining to the conciliation proceedings which are very
much part and parcel of the settlement process of an
industrial dispute.
13. Insofar decision of the Supreme Court in
Prabhakar (2 supra) is concerned, in paragraph 44 thereof
Supreme Court observed that stale claims should not be
referred for adjudication. Adjudication into stale claims
have an unsettling effect dislocating an industry.
14. We fail to understand as to how this decision is
applicable to the facts of the present case when there is a
clear finding returned by the learned Single Judge that
8 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.416 of 2020
there was no delay and laches on the part of the respondent
with which we fully concur. Certainly, claim of the
respondent was a live one and could not have been
construed and rejected as stale claim.
15. On due consideration, we do not find any error
or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
No case for interference is made out. Consequently, the
Writ Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees
five thousand only).
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,
if any, in the Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_________________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 22.07.2022
KL
