D.Mallikarjuna Rao v. Godavari

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue and order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI and to call for the records relating to and in connection with the awards passed by the respondent No.4 in I.D.No.216 of 94, dt 7-10-96 which was published in the Gazzette vide G.O.No.3315, dt 21-11-1996 (Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Department) in confirming the orders in denying my annual increments as illegal, unjust and against to the principles of natural justice and as such set aside the same with a consequently direction to pay the arrears of increments forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and is attached to Tadepalligudem Depot, has questioned the Award of the Labour Court, Guntur, dated 7th October 1996, passed in I.D.No.216 of 1994.

2. On the allegation that the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities on three different occasions, three separate orders were passed on 20.03.1980,

20.11.1984 and 30.08.1990. In the order dated

20.03.1980, a punishment of withholding of annual grade increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect was ordered. In the order dated 20.11.1984, punishment of withholding of annual grade increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect was ordered, whereas in the order dated 30.08.1990, withholding of annual grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect was ordered. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute. On failure of conciliation process, the matter was referred by the Government to the Tribunal for adjudication, under Section 10(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, by impugned Award, has declared the 1st respondent/management is justified in imposing three punishments in the orders dated 20.03.1980, 20.11.1984 and 30.08.1990.

3. This writ petition is filed questioning the Award of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider the plea of the petitioner that he was not given reasonable opportunity in the inquiry proceedings and he was also not furnished with the inquiry report.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Law Officer on behalf of the 1st respondent-Corporation, it is categorically stated that the petitioner was involved in very serious cash and ticket irregularities on three different occasions. At first instance, when he was conducting the bus on the route from Tadepalligudem to Bhimavaram on 12th January 1980, a check was exercised by the officials of the Corporation and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found. On the 2nd occasion, when the petitioner was conducting the bus on the route from Tadepalligudem to Koderu on 01.06.1984, a check was exercised by the officials and again certain cash and ticket irregularities were found. Further, on the third occasion, when the petitioner was conducting the bus on the route from Tadepalligudem to Ananthapalli on 20.01.1990, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that with reference to the above said irregularities, charges were framed against the petitioner. When the petitioner has denied the said charges in his explanation, a regular inquiry was conducted in all the three matters separately, and the inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, has recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. It is stated that three different orders were passed as early as on 20.03.1980, 20.11.1984 and 30.08.1990, but this writ petition is filed only in the year 2000, and in that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the latches and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner.

5. Except stating that he was not given proper opportunity, the petitioner has not pleaded about any procedural violation by the respondents in conducting the inquiry proceedings. More over, in this case, when the explanation was filed by the petitioner denying the charges, a regular inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry as per the Regulations, has recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Without pointing out any procedural irregularities in conducting the inquiry by the inquiry officer, by merely stating that no opportunity was given to him, the petitioner cannot question the Award impugned in the writ petition. Even this plea that he was not furnished with the inquiry report, was taken by the petitioner at a belated stage. Further, he has also not pleaded of any prejudice caused to him on account of such non-service of inquiry report. When such a plea was not taken in response to the show cause notice issued for imposing the punishment, it is not open for the petitioner to question the orders on this ground at this belated stage. In any event, it is to be seen that the orders imposing the punishment were passed on three different occasions as early as on 20.03.1980,

20.11.1984 and 30.08.1990, but the petitioner has made his belated attempt by filing this writ petition, assailing the said orders. There is also no valid explanation for the abnormal delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in seeking reference and also in approaching this Court. Even after the Award is passed, the petitioner did not approach this Court in reasonable time and he took nearly four years to question the Award. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition.

6. For the reasons referred above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 29th January 2009. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J