The Depot Manager vs B Saidulu
2022 Latest Caselaw 2890 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                       WRIT APPEAL No.442 of 2019

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

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

29.10.2018          passed        by        the     learned        Single     Judge     in

W.P.No.20792 of 2002.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent No.1/employee was appointed as a Driver in the

services of the appellant/Corporation on 23.03.1985 and he was

unauthorisedly absent for 116 days. A charge sheet was issued

and after conducting an enquiry, an order of removal was

passed on 07.01.1995 against which the respondent

No.1/employee preferred a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court passed an

award setting aside the order of removal, directed the

appellant/Corporation to reinstate the respondent

No.1/employee with continuity of service but without

backwages and attendant benefits and the punishment was

substituted to that of withholding of five annual increments

with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the award, the

respondent No.1/employee preferred a writ petition and the

learned Single Judge has modified the punishment of

withholding of five annual increments with cumulative effect to

that of without cumulative effect.

The only issue involved before this Court is whether the

punishment was disproportionate to the guilt of the respondent

No.1/employee as held by the learned Single Judge.

Undisputedly, the respondent No.1/employee was absent for

116 days and for the absence of 116 days, punishment of

removal was inflicted upon him. The Labour Court was justified

in directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1/employee vide

award dated 03.01.2001. The punishment was modified to that

of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, withholding

of five increments with cumulative effect was certainly excessive

as held by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge

has also not granted monetary benefits to the respondent

No.1/employee and therefore, this Court also does not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

17.06.2022 JSU