The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jangaon Depot, Warangal District v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Warangal

This writ petition has been filed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jangaon Depot, Warangal District with a prayer to issue a writ or order, particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Award dated 15.11.2006 passed in I.D.No.85 of 2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal, and set aside the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law.

Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this writ petition by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jangaon, Warangal District, are: 2nd respondent P.Bikshapathy was appointed as a temporary driver w.e.f.

01.08.1987. While he was driving the bus bearing No.AAZ 8161 on Jagaon-Bhadrachalam route, an accident occurred. Basing on the preliminary enquiry report, he came to be charge-sheeted. Disciplinary authority examined the enquiry report and the explanation to the charge- memo and imposed penalty of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated

06.05.1987. A reference came to be made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, ‘the Act’) to determine the dispute. The reference is as follows: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jangaon in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide order dated 06.05.1987 against Sri P.Bikshapathi, E36258(302502), Driver is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, entertained the dispute as I.D.No.85 of 2004. On considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court proceeded to modify punishment by Award dated 15.11.2006. The relevant portion of the Award reads as hereunder:

In the result, the reference is answered holding that the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Janagaon in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect against the petitioner is not justified and it is modified as deferment of annual increment for a period of two years but without cumulative effect. This award shall become enforceable on expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17 of I.D. Act by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 17-A (1) of the Act.

Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner-Corporation.

Rule Nisi came to be issued on 04.10.2007.

Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the 1st respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation submits that though proved charges are very serious in nature, the disciplinary authority, after taking lenient view, imposed the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect, but the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court without assigning proper reasons interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e., modifying the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect into deferment of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. A further submission has been made that it is not within the competency of the Labour Court to entertain the dispute wherein the Corporation imposed punishment other than discharge/dismissal/retrenchment or termination.

Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Workman submits that the very imposition of punishment i.e. deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect by the petitioner-Corporation cannot be sustained since the same is not preceded by a regular departmental enquiry.

The issue that calls for adjudication in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner made any valid grounds to interfere with the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D.No.85 of 2004 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act. The reference is already extracted supra. Section 10(1)(d) of the Act reads as hereunder: “10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals:- (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing, -- (a) …. (b) …. (c) …. (d) Refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication; Provided that where the dispute relates to any matters specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause [c]; Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act, in respect of the dispute may have commenced. it shall be competent the appropriate Government, Provided also that where the dispute in relating to which the Central Government, Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government.