APSRTC v. P.R. Reddy

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling G.O.RT.No.5 dt. 3-1-1996 on the file of the Hon’ble Court-II, Hyderabad. I.D.No.509 of 1992 dt.21-10-1995 published the records Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has questioned the award dated 21-10-1995 passed by the Labour Court II, A.P., Hyderabad, in I.D.No.509 of 1992.

The respondent herein was appointed as Conductor on 20-03-1987 in the service of the APSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent from 10-05-1990 to 16-06-1990 and based on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry conducted in that regard, he was removed from service by order dated 20- 08-1990. The said order was appealed, by the respondent unsuccessfully, and upon filing review, the reviewing authority also confirmed the order of removal. Questioning the order of removal dated 20-08-1990, as confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authority, the respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.509 of 1992 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court II, A.P., Hyderabad. The Labour Court, having gone into the gravity of the offence vis-à-vis the defence put forth by the respondent for his absence for the period from 10-05-1990 to 16-06-1990, used discretion under Section 11-A of the Act and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. It was further ordered that the period of the absence of the respondent shall be treated as sick leave or the leave for which he is eligible.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the charge leveled against the respondent is proved, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the order of his removal.

Precisely, the charge leveled against the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings is only with regard to his unauthorized absence for a period of 36 days. It is the case of the respondent that he suffered jaundice due to which he could not attend duties and he has also explained as to why he did not get treated in the clinic maintained by the APSRTC, stating that he was not possessing medical identity c a r d . Even as per findings of the enquiry officer, is evident respondent/delinquent employee has submitted sick and fit certificate. The respondent was absent for duties for 36 days owing to his ill health and the same is evident from the sick and fit certificate submitted by him. In this backdrop, the punishment imposed on the respondent seems to be vindictive and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge leveled against him. The Labour Court rightly invoked the discretion conferred on it under Section 11-A of the Act, modified the punishment and ordered reinstatement of the respondent. As much as the illness suffered by the respondent, namely jaundice, is not in dispute and the same is supported by a sick certificate produced in this regard, it was not at all a case where the respondent could be removed from service. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award passed by the respondent.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. August 20, 2008 MRR __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.