The Managing Director ... vs Sri N.Srinivasulu Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1375 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1375 Tel
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2022

Telangana High Court

The Managing Director ... vs Sri N.Srinivasulu Another on 22 March, 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.409 of 2011

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


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 18.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.24496 of 2006.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as, the

workman) was an employee serving the appellants'

Corporation as a conductor. He was appointed in the

year 1990 and a charge sheet was issued to him on

28.02.1995. The charges were in respect of tampering

the SRs (service rolls) on various dates. After

conducting a detailed and an exhaustive enquiry, an

order was passed on 07.11.1995 removing the

petitioner from service. The appeal and the review

petition preferred by the workman were rejected. The

workman preferred a petition under Section 2A(2) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour

Court has dismissed the same by an award dated

18.07.2006. The workman has thereafter preferred a

writ petition before this Court and the learned Single

Judge has directed reinstatement without back wages.

It is an undisputed fact that the charges were

proved in the departmental enquiry and the Labour

Court has not interfered with the order of removal.

But, the most important aspect of the case is that at

the relevant point of time, along with the workman,

one Assistant Depot Clerk and two Depot Clerks were

also charge sheeted for the same misconduct. They

were also found guilty and were punished with a minor

punishment and the amount purported to have been

misappropriated was recovered. It appears that the

issuance of charge sheets and initiating disciplinary

proceedings against the said employees were neither

brought to the notice of the enquiry officer nor the

Labour Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has

observed that the Labour Court cannot be blamed

stating that it did not exercise its discretion properly.

However, in view of the fact that three other persons

who were involved in the misconduct were punished

with a minor punishment, the learned Single Judge

has interfered with the quantum of punishment. The

operative paragraph of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

"I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made on either side and the material available on record.

It is a fact that a crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner as to the loss of tickets. It is also a fact that one Assistant Depot Clerk and two Depot Clerks were also charge sheeted and were punished suitably and the amount purported to have been defrauded was recovered. However, it appears, issuance of charge sheets and initiating disciplinary proceedings against Depot Clerks were neither brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer nor the Labour Court. Therefore, we cannot blame the Labour Court stating that it did not exercise its discretion properly. However, the learned counsel for the respondents admitted that the Depot Clerks who were charge sheeted for misappropriation were suitably punished and money was recovered from

them but, however, it cannot be said that the petitioner was innocent and he did not involve in the misconduct. The Labour Court has categorically gave a finding that the charges are proved in full. However, in view of the facts brought to the notice of this Court, which are admitted by the respondents that three other persons who were involved in the misconduct were punished suitably, but with a minor punishment, I am of the opinion that the petitioner also deserves the same treatment.

Under those circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the respondent/management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits.