Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager vs Sri B.Yadagiri And Another on 29 September, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23446 OF 2009
ORDER:
Assailing the Award dated 07.08.2009 in I.D.No.
213 of 2005 on the file of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad insofar as
directing the Corporation to reinstate the 1st respondent into
service without continuity of service and with 50% back wages, the
Writ Petition is filed by the Corporation.
2. The 1st respondent was engaged as a casual
conductor on daily-wage basis and his services were regularised
with effect from 01.04.1988. It is stated that during his service, he
was censured - five times, annual increments were deferred - six
times, removed from service on 16.03.1992 on the allegation of
absenteeism. In this case also, he was charge-sheeted for
unauthorised absence. Departmental enquiry followed. Thereafter,
the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary
authority holding that charge levelled against the 1st respondent
was proved and thus, imposed penalty of removal from service on
03.05.2000. The Appeal and Revision preferred against the said
order were also negatived. The 1st respondent therefore, raised a
dispute wherein the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the 1st
respondent into service without continuity of service and with 50%
of back wages from the date of removal till the date of rejection of
review petition i.e. 03.05.2000 to 26.06.2001 and from the date of
filing I.D. till the date of reinstatement. Aggrieved thereby, the
Corporation is before this Court.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri
Thoom Srinivas submits that the Labour Court having held that
charge of unauthorised absence for 33 days was proved, erred in
setting aside the order of removal. Secondly, the Labour Court
having denied continuity of service from 27.06.2001 till the date of
filing the I.D., ought not to have awarded 50% back wages. Citing
the judgment in J.K.Synthetics Ltd. vs K.P.Agrawal 1, it is
contended that back wages and punishment cannot go together,
as such awarding back wages is illegal.
4. Perused the record. The charge framed against the
1st respondent is as follows:
" For having not attended to your duties for 89 days during
the period from January 1996 to November 1996 creating public
criticism and inconvenience to the travelling public, which constitutes
misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(ix)(a)&(xxxii) of APSRTC
Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963".
But from the cross-examination of M.W.1, it was elicited that
unauthorised absence of petitioner was only for 33 days and for
the remaining days, he was granted leave by the management.
Petitioner also admitted that he abstained from duties
unauthorisedly for 33 days. Though the Corporation alleged that
2007(2) SCC 433
previously also, he remained absent and he was removed from
service on that ground, the past misconduct was not part of the
subject charge. Hence, when the unauthorised absence was only
for 33 days, punishment of removal from service appears to be
disproportionate. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said finding of the Labour Court.
As regards awarding 50% back wages is concerned,
the Labour Court keeping in view the delay of nearly five years in
approaching the Court i.e. from the date of rejection of review
petition till filing the I.D., treated the said period as break in
service. Though the 1st respondent stated that he sent
representation to different higher authorities as well as the
Government, he did not get any documents marked in proof of the
same. The Labour Court is not convinced with the submission of
the workman, hence, ordered only 50% back-wages. This Court is
also not inclined to find fault with the same as the Corporation did
not produce any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully
employed during the said period.
5. In the light of the findings recorded by the Labour
Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Award impugned does
not merit consideration. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be
dismissed.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
27th September 2023
ksld
