The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot Manugoor, Dist. Khammam v. C.S.V. Rao & Anr.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short – ‘the Corporation’) through its Depot Manager at Manugoor questioning the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, I.D.No.197 of 1996 dated 24-09-1998. The first respondent-workman was working as Conductor in the Corporation at Manugoor depot. Based on a complaint lodged by Sri J.S.Narayana, Controller of Bhadrachalam depot against the workman, alleging that on 14-03-1995 at about 23.00 hours the workman in drunken state abused him in filthy language in the presence of the other employees and the Traffic Inspector- II of Bhadrchalam Depot, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and upon receipt of the preliminary inquiry report, the Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman by framing the following charges. “1. For having abused the on duty controller Sri J.S.Narayana R-54559 in filthy language in drunken condition without any reason on 14-3- 1995 at Bhadrachalam at 23-00 hrs. presence of other employees of Bhadrachalam and T raffic Inspector-II of Bhadrachalam Depot which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iv) (viii) & (xxi) of APSRT C., Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

2. For having left the Head Quarters without obtaining the permission of concerned depot authority which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRT C., Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” In view of the denial of the charges framed against him, an inquiry officer was appointed to conduct a regular inquiry and the inquiry officer, after examining the witnesses on both sides, submitted report stating that the charges framed against him are proved. Based on such inquiry report, a show cause notice for removal from service was issued to the workman on 30-09-1995 and dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the workman, an order of removal from service was passed against him and the said order was also confirmed by the appellate and review authorities. Aggrieved by the same, the workman has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.197 of 1996 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal, while re-appreciating the evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the charges framed against the workman are not proved and directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service with 50% of back wages. Hence, the writ petition. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation is that in spite of the cogent evidence on record in support of the charges framed against the workman, the Tribunal has brushed aside the same and recorded its findings contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that in any event the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any back wages. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the workman is that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned award is supported by valid reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the award. As seen from the record, only two charges are framed against the workman. There was oral evidence on behalf of the Corporation and as well as workman. The case of the workman is that on 14-03-1995 at about 5.30 PM he suffered severe stomachache and was hospitalized in Bharat Nursing Home, Manugoor, and he was discharged at about 6.00 AM on 15-03-1995. The workman also denied his presence at Bhadrachalam depot on 14-03-1995 at about 23.00 hours and the alleged abuse against the Controller. Though it was the case of the Corporation that the alleged incident happened in the presence of the Traffic Inspector of Bhadrachalam depot, the said Traffic Inspector was not examined and even the other witnesses who were examined on behalf of the Corporation were not present at the time of the alleged incident. Apart from the complainant, the persons who were alleged to be present at the time of the incident were not examined. On the other hand, the very officials of the Corporation who were working in the Manugoor depot were examined on behalf of the workman and they categorically stated that as the workman suffered severe stomachache, they got admitted him in Bharat Nursing Home at Manugoor. Though it is the case of the Corporation that the enquiry conducted by its C.I. of Manugoor Depot with the Doctor of Bharat Nursing Home revealed that the workman was admitted in the hospital on 14-03-1995 at about 6.00 PM as an in- patient but he was found absent when the Doctor made night rounds at about 12.00 midnight, the fact remains that the Doctor was not examined by the Corporation in the inquiry proceedings. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was no material to hold the workman guilty of the first charge framed against him. Even with reference to the second charge that the workman did not obtain permission to leave the head quarters on 14-03-1995, from the very evidence of Sri A.R.Reddy, and Sri S.V.S.Narayana, who were examined on behalf of the workman and were working in Manugoor depot, it is clear that he was on duty on 14-03- 1995 in the morning session and when he complained severe stomachache in the evening he was admitted in the hospital. Inasmuch as the admission of workman in the hospital is established, the second charge framed against the workman shall also fail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to record a finding against the workman and to order his removal from service and the Tribunal, by recording valid reasons, rightly held that the charges levelled against the workman are not proved and ordered for his reinstatement with continuity of service and with 50% of the back wages. The findings recorded on appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record so as to interfere with the same. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21s t October 2008 CVRK _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J