Telangana High Court
B. Laxmaiah vs The Depot Manager on 2 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
WRIT APPEAL No.228 OF 2024
&
WRIT PETITION No.23986 OF 2004
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
The Writ Appeal is from an order passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 15.12.2018 in W.P.No.23986 of
2004.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge modified
the effect of the punishment imposed by the Senior Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (respondent
No.2 in the Writ Petition) and refused to interfere with the Award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal and opined that the withholding
of 2 increments would be given effect to without any monetary
benefit to the writ petitioner.
3. We sought for a clarification of paragraph 5 of the impugned
order from the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents. Learned Standing Counsel has explained the effect of
paragraph 5 to us.
4. The genesis of the Appeal arises out of the proceedings
dated 27.03.1995 issued by Depot Manager, Godavarikhani.
The petitioner (a Conductor of the Godavarikhani Depot) was
charge-sheeted for remaining absent from his duties on an
unauthorized basis from 21.09.1994 to 07.10.1994 and again from
20.03.1995 till date i.e., the date of passing of the Award i.e.,
27.03.1995. The Depot Manager examined the case in detail and
ordered that the writ petitioner should be removed from service
with immediate effect. The writ petitioner approached the Senior
Manager, Karimnagar by way of an Appeal provided for under
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Regulations.
5. The order of the Senior Manager, Karimnagar is part of the
records. The order of the Appellate Authority is of 16.05.1995 and
records the facts brought to the Appellate Authority by the
appellant. The Appellate Authority on considering the material
before him deemed it fit to reinstate the appellant/writ petitioner
into service with immediate effect and for being posted at the depot
concerned. The Senior Manager also reduced the penalty to the
extent of the writ petitioner's annual increment being deferred for a
period of 2 years which shall have effect on his future increments.
6. The writ petitioner thereafter approached the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court with a petition under Section 2A (2) of
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for setting aside the removal
order of the Depot Manager and for directing the Depot Manager
as well as the Senior Manager to restore the pay of the petitioner to
its original position by adding the increments up to the present
position with all consequential benefits. The Industrial Tribunal
passed an Award on 07.09.2001 dismissing the petition and
recording that the petition has been filed after 5 years from the date
of writ petitioner's reinstatement into service only for vexatious
reasons and unwarranted litigation. The Tribunal imposed costs of
Rs.1,000/- on the writ petitioner to be paid to the respondents and
liberty to the respondents to recover the costs.
7. The appellant/writ petitioner thereafter filed a Writ Petition
before a learned Single Judge of this Court for issue of appropriate
Writ and direction and for quashing the orders passed by the
respondents as well for grant of service increments to the
appellant/writ petitioner.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. We find that the writ petitioner would approach the
Industrial Tribunal with a prayer for reinstatement when the Senior
Manager had already directed for reinstatement on 16.05.1995.
Admittedly, the writ petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal
in 2000 which is more than 5 years from the order passed by the
Senior Manager. The reason for filing the Writ Petition in the High
Court is equally curious. As on the date of filing of the Writ
Petition, the writ petitioner was reinstated into service which was
also confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal in its Award dated
07.09.2001. Therefore, the only prejudice suffered by the writ
petitioner was a fine of Rs.1,000/- and deferment of his annual
increment for a period of 2 years.
10. The prayer in the Writ Petition is equally vague. The writ
petitioner prayed for issuance of Writ in the nature of writ of
Certiorari and for "quashing of the same" as illegal and arbitrary
with all consequential benefits being given to the writ petitioner.
The prayer does not specify as to the order which the writ
petitioner sought quashing of.
11. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge on 15.12.2018 and find no reason to interfere with the
same. In fact, we find that the learned Single Judge directed that
reduction of pay by 2 increments for 2 years will not have any
effect on future increments. We are of the view that the learned
Single Judge should have proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition at
the very outset given the fact that the Writ Petition was filed 3
years after the Industrial Tribunal Award.
12. The writ petitioner has not brought any grievance to the
Court in the Appeal. The writ petitioner was reinstated to the post
which the writ petitioner was holding as far as on 16.05.1995.
The writ petitioner however approached the Industrial Tribunal
after 6 years and thereafter the High Court with a Writ Petition
3 years after the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
The present Appeal has been filed almost 6 years after the
impugned order.
13. The delay, laches and acquiescence on the part of the writ
petitioner together with the complete absence of a cause of action
are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the Appeal. We find
absolutely no merit either in the Writ Petition or in the Writ
Appeal. We hence proceed also to dismiss the Writ Petition.
14. W.A.No.228 of 2024 and W.P.No.23986 of 2004, along with
all connected applications, are dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
_____________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
______________________
M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J
02.09.2024
Lrkm
