Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 438 (AP)

A. R. Swamy v. Government of A. P.

2008-06-30

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
ORDER: The petitioner was employed in the Kavali Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., as Mechanic. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 30-11-2002, by the Depot Manager, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 19-02-2003, imposing the punishment of deferment of increment, for a period of six months, without cumulative effect. Departmental appeal filed against the order, before the Divisional Manager; was rejected. 2. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent, with a request to refer the dispute, that arose out of the order of punishment dated 19-02-2003, to the Labour Court, for adjudication. Conciliation was undertaken, and it failed. As regards the reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, the 1st respondent issued letter dated 23-07-2007, informing the petitioner that since he had already retired from service in the year 2003 itself, it is not feasible to accede to the request. It was also observed that there does not exist any relationship of employer and employee, between the petitioner and the A.P.S.R.T.C. Petitioner challenges the letter dated 23-07-2007, issued by the 1st respondent. 3. Heard Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Labour, and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') provides for the machinery, and prescribes the procedure, for resolution of industrial disputes, between the workman and employers. While in some cases, the aggrieved party can directly approach the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, such as under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, as regards the other matters, a reference has to be made by the appropriate Government, to the Tribunal or Court. Since the grievance of the petitioner did not fit into Section 2-A(2) of the Act, he invoked the machinery under Section 10 of the Act. 5. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to, on the ground that long before the Conciliation Officer reported failure, the petitioner retired from service. It may be true that an adjudication, under the Act, can take place even where an individual is out of employment. In fact, the cases, in relation to dismissal, removal and retrenchment fall into that category. However, where the employment itself has come to an end, in the usual course, and not on account of any acts or omissions, complained against the employer, reference becomes untenable. In fact, the cases, in relation to dismissal, removal and retrenchment fall into that category. However, where the employment itself has come to an end, in the usual course, and not on account of any acts or omissions, complained against the employer, reference becomes untenable. One thing, which needs to be mentioned here is that, if the process was initiated, when the relationship subsisted, the mere fact that the employee retired thereafter, cannot render the reference untenable. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30-06-2006, and his appeal before the Divisional Manager was dismissed on 02-09-2006. He initiated conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, only in December, 2006. Hence, there was no basis for the petitioner to seek reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. 6. Apart from that, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any genuine grievance. The only punishment imposed against him was, deferment of increment by six months, without cumulative effect. With the expiry of six months, the increment got restored, and no monetary loss had accrued to the petitioner. Once he has retired from service, even that punishment becomes insignificant, from the point of view of further promotions etc. 7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.