Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, vs Sri T.Kumar, on 3 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.166 OF 2009
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
07.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.15955 of 2000.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent No.1/employee, while he was working as a
Conductor in Warangal Division, was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings and after following due process of law, an order
dated 20.05.1984 was passed removing him from service. The
respondent No.1/employee raised a dispute and as conciliation
proceedings ended in failure, a reference was made to the
Labour Court by the appropriate Government in respect of
termination of the respondent No.1/employee vide order dated
20.05.1984, and the same was numbered as I.D.No.43 of 1990.
The Labour Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has set aside the
punishment of removal and has directed reinstatement of the
respondent No.1/employee on the post of Conductor with
continuity of service, but without back wages. However, a
punishment of stoppage of six annual increments has been
inflicted upon the respondent No.1/employee. The respondent
No.1/employee has preferred the writ petition and the learned
Single Judge has affirmed the award passed by the Labour
Court to the extent it has directed reinstatement of the
respondent No.1/employee without back wages, however has
interfered with the quantum of punishment.
Sri Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant/Corporation, has vehemently argued before this Court
that the order of the learned Single Judge has been suspended
by this Court on 18.02.2009 and the respondent No.1/
employee has already attained the age of superannuation. He
has also argued before this Court that in case the quantum of
punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct, the matter
would have been remanded to the disciplinary authority and the
learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in interfering
with the quantum of punishment.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/employee has vehemently argued before this Court that
keeping in view the guilt of the respondent No.1/employee, the
learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the quantum of
punishment, the respondent No.1/employee is no longer in
service and therefore, the writ appeal be dismissed.
This Court has carefully gone through the documents on
record and the facts reveal that the respondent No.1/employee
was censured for six times, charge-sheeted for two times and
increments were deferred for twelve times. Meaning thereby,
the respondent No.1/employee was a habitual offender. The
Labour Court has already taken a lenient view in the matter by
interfering with the quantum of punishment and has directed
reinstatement of the respondent No.1/employee without back
wages and a punishment of withholding of six annual
increments has been inflicted upon the respondent
No.1/employee.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, keeping
in view the totality of circumstances of the case, the learned
Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the quantum of
punishment. No cogent reason has been assigned by the
learned Single Judge while interfering with the quantum of
punishment and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
order passed by the learned single Judge deserves to be set
aside and is accordingly set aside.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
03.03.2022
JSU
