Telangana High Court

The Depot Manager, vs Morla Maheswar, on 8 March, 2022

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.27211 OF 2003


                               ORDER

This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the

award in I.D.No.93 of 2002 dt.24.03.2003 on the file of the Labour

Court, Godavarikhani and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by

way of issue of a Writ of Certiorari.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are that the 1st

respondent was appointed as daily wage Conductor with effect from

05.03.1991 in APSRTC and while working so, on 04.05.2000 the 1st

respondent was conducting the Bus bearing No.4295 on the route from

Nagapoor to Mancherial and a check was conducted at Stage No.13/12

in which certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. Thereupon,

the following charges were framed:

(1) For having failed to observe the rule "Issue and Start".

(2) For having collected Rs.8/- from two individual passengers (Each Rs.4/- total Rs.8/- at boarding point itself) found W.P.No.27211 of 2003

travelling without ticket, who boarded the bus at Nagapoor, stage No.14 and bound for Asnad II Stage No.13/12.

(3) For having closed the tray nos. of all denominations upto stage no.13, without completing the above ticket issues.

3. The 1st respondent therefore was subjected to departmental

enquiry and thereafter was dismissed from service. On appeal, the 1st

respondent was reinstated into service, but punishment was modified by

reducing his pay by two increments for a period of two years with

cumulative effect. Against the same, the 1st respondent filed a Review

Petition and the same was also dismissed, against which the 1st

respondent approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court modified

the punishment to stoppage of increments for a period of two years

without cumulative effect and against such relief granted by the Labour

Court, the Corporation has filed this Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Ravi Babu, submitted

that the Labour Court erred in entertaining the dispute itself as the

reference was not against any dismissal or discharge from service but it

was against the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative

effect. He submitted that Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 refers to appropriate relief in case of only discharge or dismissal W.P.No.27211 of 2003

and not in relation to any other punishment. He relied upon a decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of South Indian

Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. Kerala State Cashew

Development Corpn. Ltd. and others1, for the proposition that the

powers of Labour Court were restricted only to interfere when there

were allegations of unfair labour practice, victimisation, etc., and it

cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. He

therefore submitted that the award of Labour Court is liable to be set

aside on this ground alone.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri V. Narasimha

Goud, on the other hand submitted that Section 11-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act deals with not only dismissal and discharge of employees

but also deals with any proceeding relating to such dismissal or

discharge. He submitted that the 1st respondent was initially dismissed

from service and it is only in the appeal that he has been reinstated and

the punishment of stoppage of increments is in modification of the order

of dismissal or discharge from service. He further submitted that the

Tribunal has the power to reappraise the evidence and also to examine

(2006) 5 SCC 201 W.P.No.27211 of 2003

the correctness of the findings and not only to interfere with the

punishment, but also to alter the same. In support of these arguments,

he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and

Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. Vs. The Management and others2. He

also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Divisional

Manager, APSRTC and another Vs. E. Raja Reddy and another3

and Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur District and another Vs. Ch.

Suresh Babu and another4.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South

Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. Kerala State Cashew

Development Corpn. Ltd. and others (1supra), wherein bias against

the enquiry officer was raised for the first time before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and it was in these circumstances that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the enquiry was conducted

by an officer of the management and that he had made some

AIR 1973 SC 1227

1999 (5) ALD 735

2019 (2) ALD 264 (DB) W.P.No.27211 of 2003

observations in the enquiry report which were not warranted, was not

vitiative of the enquiry itself. The Supreme Court further held that where

there was a punishment order than dismissal or discharge after a

properly conducted enquiry in which there was no violation of principles

of natural justice and the findings were not perverse, the Labour Court

could not reappraise the evidence to examine the propriety of the

quantum of punishment and thereafter it was held that Section 11A was

applicable only in case of dismissal or discharge of a workman. This

observation of the Court is only on the basis of the recitals in the

heading of the Section.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, relied upon

a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Workmen

of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. Vs. The

Management and others (2 supra), wherein at para 32 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

"We will first consider cases where an employer has held a proper and valid domestic enquiry before passing the order of punishment. Previously the Tribunal had no power to interfere with its finding of misconduct recorded in the domestic enquiry unless one or other infirmities pointed out by this Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1958 SCR 667 = AIR 1958 SC 130 existed. The conduct of W.P.No.27211 of 2003

disciplinary proceeding and the punishment to be imposed were all considered to be a managerial function with which the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to an inference of victimisation or unfair labour practice. This position, in our view, has now been changed by Section 11A. The words "in the course of the adjudication proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified" clearly indicate that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer established the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion that could be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the Tribunal that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1958 SCR 667 = AIR 1958 SC 130, case can no longer be invoked by an employer. The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct; but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has ceased to be so; and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter."

8. This decision has been followed by Division Benches of this

Court in the cases of Divisional Manager, APSRTC and another Vs.

E. Raja Reddy and another (3 supra) and Depot Manager, APSRTC,

Guntur District and another Vs. Ch. Suresh Babu and another (4

supra).

W.P.No.27211 of 2003

9. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to

reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals and Section 10A

thereof is applicable to voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration.

Section 11 refers to procedure and power of conciliation officers,

Boards, Courts and Tribunals, while Section 11A refers to powers of

Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate