HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.18922 of 2014 Date: 23-12-2014 Between Ch.Narasimulu (Chakali Narasimulu) … Petitioner and The Labour Court-III, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad;
and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.18922 of 2014 Order:
Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation, for short).
2. The petitioner is a conductor in the respondents 2 and 3- Corporation. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and another conductor, by name Jagadeesham on the ground that they were allegedly involved in a criminal case registered under the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the SC/ST Act, for short) in Crime Nos.14 of 2001 and 62 of 2007 of Damaragidda Police Station, respectively. Charges were framed against both of them to the effect that they did not inform the Corporation about the their involvement in the criminal case and also their arrest in connection with the said case even after releasing on bail. An enquiry was held against the petitioner and Mr. Jagadeesham. The criminal case in S.C.No.14 of 2002 was tried by the learned Special Sessions Judge in which the petitioner was figured as accused No.6 and Jagadeesham was figured as accused No.2. A charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was framed against the petitioner, Jagadeesham and some others, whereas an additional charge under Section 324 IPC was framed against Jagadeesham. Both of them were convicted by the learned Special Sessions Judge in the sessions case.
3. In the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner and Jagadeesham, both were not present and the enquiry was concluded ex parte. In the departmental enquiry held against Jagadeesham, apart from marking some documents, the Corporation examined the Assistant Manager as M.W.1. In the enquiry held against the petitioner, the decision was taken by appreciating documentary evidence and no witness was examined on behalf of the Corporation. However, at the conclusion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed order of removal from service against the petitioner as well as Jagadeesham.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.4 of 2009 and Jagadeesham filed I.D.No.3 of 2009.
The Presiding Officer of Labour Court-III, Hyderabad passed two separate awards setting aside the removal order passed against Jagadeesham directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate him into service as a fresh conductor, whereas passed an award against the petitioner dismissing his entire claim.
5. In the meanwhile, Criminal Appeal No.2260 of 2004 filed by the petitioner, Jagadeesham and others before this Court came to be disposed of on 24-02-2011. Learned single Judge of this Court upon reapprising the entire evidence held that the accused belong to Telugu Desam Party and the prosecution party belongs to Congress- I Party and that all the accused in the case were implicated on account of political rivalry and it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 without any independent evidence and consequently held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act against the accused 1 to 7 and for the offence under Section 324 IPC against accused No.1 and accused No.2 (Jagadeesham).
6. By virtue of the judgment passed in the criminal appeal, the question of the petitioner committing an offence involving moral turpitude does not arise.
The only question which is to be considered in the present writ petition is whether the Labour Court is justified in passing two different awards in respect of the two employees facing similar enquiry on similar charges. It is true that Regulation No.28(xxii) of the Respondents 2 and 3-Corporation provides for taking disciplinary action against the employees who are involved in criminal cases and failed to inform the said involvement to the Department. In I.D.No.3 of 2009 filed by Jagadeesham, the Labour Court recorded a finding that in fact there was no evidence on record except the evidence of Assistant Manager and Ex.M-5 letter and that gross disproportionate punishment of removal from service was imposed against the petitioner therein. The Labour Court also observed that “what the respondent wanted to do, could not do directly because there is no evidence in proof of commission of offence under the SC/ST Act, and therefore the respondent did what he wanted to do through the charge of misconduct for non-intimation of arrest and this is what is colourable exercise of power.”
7. Coming to I.D.No.4 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court gave altogether different findings confirming the termination order passed by the Disciplinary Authority almost basing on the similar charge. Moreover, in the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner, even the Assistant Manager was not examined and therefore, nobody spoke before the Enquiry Officer about non- informing of the criminal case. Therefore, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, absolutely there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer except some documents, which were marked as Exs.M-1 to M-31. Mere marking of the documents, no charge was proved against the petitioner since in respect of the two employees facing similar charges, under similar circumstances, the Labour Court passed two different awards one setting aside the removal order and the other confirming the removal order. It can undoubtedly be said that the award passed by the Labour Court is perverse and it is also not based on evidence in so far as the petitioner is concerned since on behalf of the Department, no witness was examined in the departmental enquiry.
8. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation that the criminal appeal was disposed of in the year 2011 and the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2014. Further, it is contended that the petitioner did not inform about his involvement in the criminal case for a period of two years which fact has been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, soon after release on bail, the petitioner informed about his involvement in the criminal case to the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation, but at a later stage unnecessarily a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as he was in judicial custody for 7 days he could not inform about his involvement in the criminal case at appropriate time. However, the Sub Inspector of Police who arrested the petitioner informed the same to the Department. The version of the petitioner is that subsequent to his release on bail immediately he informed about his arrest to the authorities of the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation.
9. The award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.4 of 2009 against the petitioner is impugned in the present writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the relief of setting aside the award and also a direction to the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation to reinstate him into service. Normally, if the award is based on evidence and when it does not suffer from any infirmities, this Court will not interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. But, in this case, the award passed by the Labour Court is perverse and discriminatory and therefore, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian can interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court in respect of two employees i.e., the petitioner and Jagadeesham in respect of same charges in the light of almost in respect of same offences, on same evidence passed different awards by setting aside the termination order in I.D.No.3 of 2009 filed by Jagadeesham and confirming the termination order in I.D.No.4 of 2009 filed by the petitioner.
10. As regards laches, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to financial constraints, the petitioner could not approach this Court at appropriate time. When there is clear infringement of right of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to refuse the relief to him on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. The award passed by the Labour Court being perverse and discriminatory is liable to be set aside in this writ petition.
11. Consequently, the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.4 of 2009 is set aside. The respondents 2 and 3-Corporation are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits but without any back wages. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
23rd December, 2014. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.18922 of 2014 23rd December, 2014. (Ak)