Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 988 (AP)

Depot Manager, APSRTC v. P. Abhilash, Secretary

2013-11-08

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2013
Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the award dated 07.11.2006, in ID No.150 of 2005, passed by the Industrial Tribunal II, Hyderabad, the petitioner, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) has filed the present writ petition impugning the said award. In fact, the Labour Court has modified the punishment of removal from service by directing reinstatement of the first respondent herein with continuity of service, but without back wages. 2. The facts in brief are that the first respondent joined the services of the Corporation as a contract Conductor on 30.08.1993, and there afterwards his services were regularized on 31.08.1994. The record reveals that on 02.09.2002, at 09.15 AM, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.8/7, Radhika Theatre, while the petitioner was conducting the bus No.5898 on route No.16-A. A charge memo was issued on the ground that the first respondent failed to issue tickets to a batch of five (05) passengers who are school girls, aged 12 years, found alighting at Radhika Theatre, though fare of Rs.2.50/- from each passenger was collected. 3. Based on the above said charge, consequent upon the explanation submitted by the first respondent, an enquiry was conducted and eventually, the disciplinary authority passed orders on 30.12.2002, imposing a major punishment of removal from service. 4. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the first respondent raised an Industrial dispute in ID No.150 of 2005 (old ID No.233 of 2003) before the Labour Court, which eventually modified the order of removal from service passed by the Corporation and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages, but with continuity of service. Thus, aggrieved by the award dated 07.11.2006 passed by the second respondent, the present writ petition has been filed by the Corporation. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has strenuously contended that the first respondent was given every opportunity at the time of enquiry, very cogent evidence had been brought on record, and after considering the entire material, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service, in as much as the charge was held completely proved. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has strenuously contended that the first respondent was given every opportunity at the time of enquiry, very cogent evidence had been brought on record, and after considering the entire material, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service, in as much as the charge was held completely proved. It is the specific contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the first respondent collected the fare of Rs.12.50/- from five (05) passengers, but has failed to issue any ticket; as per Corporation Regulations, it does amount to a major misconduct leading to removal from service. The learned counsel has further contended that the Indian Evidence Act,1872 per se has no application to the disciplinary proceedings; as such, the first respondent cannot insist on hyper technicalities to appreciate the material on record. 6. Taking this court through the entire record, especially the award of the second respondent, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the first respondent-workman has not laid any evidence before the Labour Court to rebut the contentions that have been raised by the Corporation and also the material documents filed in support of the charge. In sum and substance, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the Corporation officials have conducted a check, took the passengers’ statements, issued a charge memo instantaneously, and later conducted a departmental enquiry by giving ample opportunity to the first respondent. Only after following the entire process and only based on the very cogent material, was major punishment of removal imposed. It is contended that the Labour Court ought not to have lightly interfered with the findings of the disciplinary authority. It is finally contended that disciplinary authority is to be given ample leverage in determining the misconduct of the delinquent workman. The 2nd respondent Labour Court ought not to have modified the punishment based on mere surmises and conjectures. 7. Per contra, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has vehemently contended that the entire process of enquiry has been only ritualistic without any application of mind, that though there was no material at all to come to an adverse conclusion, the disciplinary authority has handed down most shocking punishment in the form of removal from service, which is without bringing home the guilt or misconduct on the part of the first respondent-employee. The learned counsel has extensively referred to the award passed by the second respondent and has pointed out that the material evidence produced by the Corporation was full of contradictions and the oral evidence of its own officials is no better. Accordingly, the learned counsel has contended that the Labour Court has rightly interfered with the order of punishment imposed on the first respondent by duly giving the benefit of doubt to the workman based on the settled principles of Law. 8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the learned counsel for the first respondent, apart from perusal of the records. 9. On appreciation of the material that has been placed on record, it is evident that the appellant-Corporation before the Labour Court has marked as many as 23 Exhibits i.e., M1 to M23, though none were examined as its witnesses. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent has force to the extent that there have been many contradictions in the version of the checking officials, as those versions do not gel with their own material documents. One of the principle contentions was that the check was not effected when the alleged ticketless passengers were alighting, but even before the next stage would arrive. In fact, there are sufficient indications in Ex.M14 which is the statement of a T.T.I., who is one of the checking officials. Since the statement was recorded during the course of departmental enquiry, reliance can safely be placed on the said statement. The Labour Court has extensively dealt with the aspect of the contradictions, in the light of the statement made by the checking official in Ex.M14. Summing up the contradictions, it can be stated that there are two versions from the officials themselves. When Ex.M14 is viewed in juxtaposition with the other material on record, it is doubtful whether the check was effected when the alleged ticketless passengers were alighting or whether even before the next stage would arrive. The Labour Court has thus given credence to the version of the 1st respondent that even before the next stage would arrive the check was effected en route and as such, there was no time for the 1st respondent to issue tickets to those passengers. The Labour Court has thus given credence to the version of the 1st respondent that even before the next stage would arrive the check was effected en route and as such, there was no time for the 1st respondent to issue tickets to those passengers. Even going by the Corporation Regulations, it would not amount to any misconduct if no ticket is issued after collecting the fare before a stage properly arrives. As both the versions are tenable, the benefit of doubt invariably would go to the affected workmen i.e., the first respondent. 10. Viewed from another angle, the initial version brought on record by the Corporation was that all the five (05) ticketless passengers, who happened to be girl students, aged 12, were alighting from one exit when the check was effected. Subsequently, in the charge memo it was recorded that initially three (03) passengers were alighting from the front door and two (02) more from the rear. Those alighting from the rear door do not seem to be the students. No explanation was forthcoming why Excess Fare Ticket (EFT) was not collected from those two (02) passengers. It may have to be appreciated in the light of the explanation given by the Corporation that in so far as the students are concerned, no EFT was collected since they expressed inability to pay, being young students with no extra money. Be that as it may, taking into account the charge memo, the passenger statement, and also the evidence of one of the checking officials, it is amply clear that the entire process of determining the misconduct of the first respondent has been brought under a cloud of uncertainty and contradictions. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the second respondent-Labour Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the first respondent and has accordingly modified the punishment imposed on the first respondent by the appellant. 11. Going through the entire material, without re-appreciating the same, it may be safely concluded that there is no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the second respondent-Labour Court, calling for any interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction of the certiorari by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.