E. Prabhakar vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4055 Tel

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

            WRIT PETITION No. 18317 OF 2011

ORDER:

The Award dated 11.03.2011 in I.D.No. 1 of 2010

on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad is questioned in

this Writ Petition. By virtue of the said Award, the relief sought

by the petitioner was rejected.

2. Petitioner enrolled as a member of the claimant

union. He joined the service of the Corporation as conductor on

23.05.1989 and subsequently, his services were regularized

with effect from 18.08.1990. While so, on 20.10.1999, when

petitioner was conducting the bus service from Devarakonda to

Chandur, a check was exercised at stage No. 9/10, but no

irregularities were found, hence, the checking officials did not

issue any charge memo. However, a memo dated 10.10.1999

was served on 22.10.1999 alleging cash and ticket irregularities.

Without considering the actual facts, the Corporation

suspended him from service on 30.11.1999 and after

conducting departmental enquiry, punishment of postponement

of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect

besides treating the suspension period as 'not on duty' was

imposed. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is stated to have

preferred Appeal and Revision and both of them were rejected.

Hence, he approached APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, which,

in turn, moved an Application under Section 2-K of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') before the

Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda. Since the matter

was not settled, he concluded the proceedings on 03.09.2009

and sent the factual report vide letter dated 09.09.2009 to the

Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, who, in turn,

was pleased to refer the matter to the Labour Court wherein the

said reference was numbered as I.D.No.1 of 2010. The Labour

Court passed the Award impugned dismissing the I.D. on the

ground that reference has become stale.

3. The Corporation, in its counter, stated that during

his service, petitioner was censured 15 times, increments

deferred six times, suspended one time. It is stated that alleging

cash and ticket irregularities, departmental enquiry was

conducted against petitioner and a copy of enquiry report was

also supplied to him and he was inflicted with punishment of

deferring annual increment for one year with cumulative effect

which is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. It

is stated that respondent followed the procedure in accordance

with the Regulations and there is no violation of principles of

natural justice. According to the respondent, petitioner knowing

fully-well that appeal and revision preferred by him were

rejected, after lapse of eight years, approached this Court,

hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.

Narsimha Goud as well as learned Standing Counsel for

Corporation Sri Gaddam Srinivas.

5. The Labour Court vide Award impugned held that

management failed to prove all the charges alleged against

petitioner, but however, dismissed the Dispute stating that it is

not maintainable. The Labour Court observed that subject

reference was having its origin in 1999. The checking officials

exercised check on 10.10.1999 and punishment was imposed

on 30.10.2000. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed on

12.05.2001 so also Revision on 21.06.2003. Subsequent to that,

another disciplinary proceedings against the same workman

finding him guilty of cash and ticket irregularities was

conducted and he was removed from service on 04.02.2005

against which I.D.No. 100 of 2005 was raised. By that time, the

workman or Union did not raise the subject dispute. Non-

raising of dispute relating to subject matter and raising the

subsequent dispute itself indicates that it has become stale, so

the government lost jurisdiction to refer the dispute for

adjudication, hence, the very reference was bad, as such, the

I.D. cannot be maintained. Further, it was observed that the

amendment brought by way of Section 2-A(3) impliedly shows

that if a dispute is not raised within three years, it becomes

stale.

6. As rightly pointed out by Sri Goud, Section 2A(3) of

the Act was introduced vide Act No. 24 of 2010 on 18.08.2010

which came into force on 15.09.2010. The said amendment will

have no retrospective effect. Hence, it cannot be made

applicable to the dispute in question. According to the learned

counsel, reference was made under Section 10 of the Act, which

authorizes the appropriate government to refer the dispute at

any time to a Court for inquiry. It prescribed no limitation. He

relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sapan

Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board 1, wherein it is

held that 'there are cases in which lapse of time had caused

fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the

dispute alive during the long interval, it is reasonably possible to

(2001) 6 SCC 222

conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after

some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not

galvanized by the workmen or the union on account of other

justified reasons, it does not cause the dispute to wane into total

eclipse. In this case, when the government has chosen to refer

the dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act the

High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the

ground of delay. Of course, the long delay for making the

adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities

while molding its releifs. That is a different matter altogether.

The High Court has obviously gone wrong in axing down the

order of reference made by the government for adjudication. Let

the adjudicatory process reach its legal culmination."

He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Shahaji v. Executive Engineer, PWD 2 to submit that

even if there is delay, if Labour Court comes to the conclusion

that termination was illegal, it can suitably mould relief to be

granted to workman. In such cases, award of backwages may

either not be permitted or curtailed.

In view of the above judgments, since the dispute

was referred by the government under Section 10 (1) of the Act,

2006 SCC (L&S) 644

the Labour Court is wrong in holding that the government lost

jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication which dispute

became stale, hence, the very reference was bad, as such, the

I.D. cannot be maintained.

7. With regard to the charges levelled against

petitioner, the Labour Court held that the management failed to

prove all the charges. Hence, this Court is of the view that the

impugned Award is liable to be set aside.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting

aside the Award dated 11.03.2011 in I.D.No.1 of 2010 on the file

of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Needless to say that the

respondent management shall restore the deferred increments

duly treating the suspension period as duty with all

consequential benefits, within a period of four weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 16th November 2023

ksld