THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.19013 OF 2000 Between:-
The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Gudivada, Krishna District and another …Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.19013 OF 2000 ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents.
The petitioners (APSRTC) filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the award in I.D.No.203 of 1993 dated 10-3-2000 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur.
The brief facts essential for disposing of the present writ petition may be stated as follows:- The second respondent was appointed as a Hammerman on 14-9-1959 in the petitioner corporation.
Subsequently, he was promoted as Blacksmith and he worked up to 15-12-1992. The first petitioner issued a charge sheet dated 15-12-1992 to the second respondent with the following charges:-
i) For having failed to obey the instructions of his supervisor in arranging RNS spring assembling to the vehicle No.8588 on 24-11-1992 on the plea that the blades are not available in the stores.
ii) For having failed to arrange RNS spring assembling to the vehicle No.8588 on 24-11-1992 even though spring leaves from main to 5th leaf are available in the stores, which resulted the vehicle was detained and kept off the road causing loss of revenues to the corporation.
A Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the second respondent and the enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry, found the charges proved against the second respondent and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority concurring with the finding of the enquiry officer, passed an order removing the second respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the second respondent raised Industrial Dispute No.203 of 1993, which came to be heard by the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Guntur.
Pending adjudication of Industrial Dispute, the second respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 3 to 6 and they continued the Industrial Dispute.
Upon hearing both sides, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Guntur, repelled all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents that due procedure has not been followed in conducting enquiry. The learned Presiding Officer also found that there is no substance in the contention that the department failed to prove the charges against the second respondent. The learned Tribunal also was of the view that the second respondent is guilty of disobedience in discharge of duties and it amounts to misconduct. The learned Tribunal however took the view that the punishment of removal from service inflicted on the second respondent is shockingly disproportionate and a lesser punishment ought to have been imposed by the disciplinary authority. The learned Tribunal was of the view that had the second respondent not been removed from service on 11-3-1993, he ought to have been continued in service for more than five years. Since the Tribunal was of the view that the second respondent is entitled for reinstatement by imposing a minor penalty having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents 3 to 6 are entitled for compensation, the learned Tribunal calculated the salary of the second respondent if he had been in service at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rupees one lakh, ninety two thousand only), but considering the fact that the second respondent is liable for a minor punishment, thought it not appropriate to grant the entire amount of salary of five years as compensation, but held that 50% of the salary can be granted as compensation. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to respondents 3 to 6.
This Court is of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in arriving at a conclusion that the punishment imposed on the second respondent was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and that the second respondent is entitled for reinstatement into service by imposing some minor penalty. In the aforesaid circumstances, granting of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is quite reasonable and appropriate, which needs no interference in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 05-06-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.19013 OF 2000 Date: 05-06-2014 Shr.