HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1067 OF 2014 15-07-2014 BETWEEN The APSRTC, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another …Appellants And A. Mannan and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1067 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the APSRTC’) against the common order dated 20-09-2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 106 of 2005 and 13899 of 2004.
The 1st respondent (for short ‘the respondent’) joined the service of the APSRTC as a driver on 01-02-1985. He was driving a bus at a particular route on 24-02-2001. A charge-sheet was issued to him alleging that he was involved in an altercation with one of the passengers by name N. Lingaiah and he beat the passenger with a slipper. The respondent submitted explanation and not satisfied with that, the 2nd appellant ordered domestic enquiry. The charge was held proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd appellant passed order dated 07-05-2002 directing removal of the respondent from service. The respondent filed I.D No. 53 of 2002 before the Labour Court – III, Hyderabad (for short’ the Labour Court’) challenging the order of punishment. Through its Award dated 26-05-2004, the Labour Court has set aside the order dated 07-05-2002 and directed reinstatement of the respondent into service with continuity of service and back wages, but without attendant benefits. While the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 106 of 2005 challenging the Award, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 13899 of 2004 claiming the relief of attendant benefits. The learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
The charge against the respondent was serious in nature. He was alleged to have beaten one of the passengers with a slipper. In the domestic enquiry, the charge was held proved and an order of removal was passed. The only basis for the Labour Court to hold that the charge is not proved is that the passenger by name Lingaiah who was examined as a witness in the domestic enquiry stated that he has compromised the matter with the respondent. The Labour Court failed to take note of the fact that it was not a case of, the concerned passenger withdrawing the complaint, or there not being any evidence, at all, on record. The Enquiry Officer referred to the deposition of a lady passenger who categorically stated that the respondent beat Mr. Lingaiah, a passenger in the bus itself. T h e Labour Court has shown undeserving sympathy towards the respondent. Although there is proof of acts of misconduct, the relief of back wages was also granted. We are in disagreement with that. The learned single Judge ought to have taken note of it.
We, therefore, allow the writ appeal to the effect that the Award passed by the Labour Court directing payment of back wages is set aside. However, if the respondent was extended any monetary benefits in that behalf, no recoveries shall be effected thereof. If, on the other hand, the amount representing back wages is still not paid, the same need not be paid. The other benefits, in accordance with the award, however can be extended.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 15-07-2014 ks