HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1937 OF 2013 07-07-2014 BETWEEN R. Sudershanam …Appellant And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Executive Director (Administration), Corporate Office, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 and three others …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1937 OF 2013
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant was employed as a Coach Builder in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in the year 1975. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in relation to unauthorised absence between 03-11-1986 and 27-11-1986. The departmental enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the findings recorded therein, an order of removal was passed on 26-06-1987. Challenging the same, the appellant filed departmental appeal and review, but unsuccessfully. On a mercy petition submitted to the Executive Director, an order was passed on 16-12-1992 setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the appellant into service. Punishment of reduction of pay by one stage, to be in force for two years, with cumulative effect was imposed. It was further directed that the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as not on duty.
On being approached by the appellant, the concerned labour union espoused the cause and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Anantapur in I.A No. 42 of 2005.
The Labour Court passed a nil award. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 27661 of 2007 before this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 14- 08-2013. Hence, the writ appeal.
Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.V. Subba Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
A serious objection is raised as to the very maintainability of the writ appeal. The industrial dispute was raised by the Depot Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Kadiri and in case the award was not satisfactory, the writ petition ought to have been filed by the Depot Secretary himself. It is only when the individual dispute is referable to Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act), that the concerned employee can directly approach the Labour Court or the High Court, as the case may be. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents cannot be said to be without any substance.
Be that as it may, the dispute before the Labour Court was about the imposition of punishment of reduction of pay scale by one stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect and directing the period between the date of order of removal and the date of reinstatement as not on duty. The Labour Court addressed the question as to whether the domestic enquiry suffered any infirmity. A finding was recorded to the effect that the domestic enquiry was proper. Therefore, the entire focus shifted to the exercise referable to Section 11-A of the Act, namely, the proportionality of punishment.
The punishment suffered by the appellant was only one of reduction of pay scale by one stage. When the order of removal is set aside, that too on the ground of mercy even while keeping the findings in-tact, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate, by any standard. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge.
Another contention advanced by the appellant is about the direction issued by the Executive Director as regards the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement. It was directed that it shall be treated as not on duty for all purposes.
The apprehension of the appellant is that it would virtually bring about discontinuity and he would be denied the benefit of past service. We are of the view that though the appellant can be denied the benefit of increments and other monetary benefits for that period, it can be treated as part of his service.
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed in part, with an observation that the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as holding good for computation of the terminal benefits, and not for any increments or other monetary benefits.
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 07-07-2014 ks Note:
LR copy to be marked.
B/O ks