Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1298 (AP)

Depot Manager, APSRTC v. K. Venkata Satyanarayana

2014-10-20

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT : L.N. Reddy, J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17229 of 2006. 2. The 1st respondent herein (for short 'the respondent') was working as Assistant Depot clerk in the Madhira Depot of APSRTC i.e., appellant herein, in the year 1995. He went to his native place on 05.05.1995. A rioting has taken place and in that connection, he was arrested on 08.05.1995. He remained in police custody till 17.05.1995. Taking these developments into account, the appellant issued a charge sheet dated 16.06.1995, wherein three charges in relation to his unauthorised absence, failure to report about arrest and participation in the act of rioting, were framed. The explanation submitted by the respondent was found not satisfactory. On the same day, he was also placed under suspension. 3. The enquiry officer submitted a report, holding that all the charges were proved. Taking the same into account, the appellant passed an order, dated 28.12.1995 removing the respondent from service. The Appeal preferred against the same to the Divisional Manager was rejected on 22.04.1996 and the Revision before the Regional Manager was dismissed on 19.04.1999. 4. The respondent filed I.D. No. 83 of 1999 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He pleaded that the charges were framed without application of mind and the enquiry officer held the charges as proved, without there being any evidence. The I.D. was opposed by the appellant. Through its award, dated 13.12.2005, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal, directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and attendant benefits. It has also awarded full back wages. The appellant filed W.P. No. 17229 of 2006 challenging the award. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It is no doubt true that there are certain observations in the award passed by the Labour Court, which are perverse in nature. For instance, while discussing charge No. 1, the Labour Court found fault with the appellant for not referring to the period of absence from 05.05.1995 and framing a charge with reference to 08.05.1995. 6. It is no doubt true that there are certain observations in the award passed by the Labour Court, which are perverse in nature. For instance, while discussing charge No. 1, the Labour Court found fault with the appellant for not referring to the period of absence from 05.05.1995 and framing a charge with reference to 08.05.1995. If any period of absence anterior to 08.05.1995 is excluded in the charge, one just cannot understand as to what detriment the respondent can be said to have suffered. 7. Be that as it may, the entire episode revolves around the factum of the respondent having been arrested in connection with a criminal case. Though the respondent was convicted by the Criminal Court, he was extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. Section 12 of that enactment is to the effect that on being extended the benefit thereunder, the concerned person would not reel under any disqualification in the context of employment or other similar provisions. The Supreme Court interpreted that provision in its judgment in Shankar Dass vs. Union of India and another (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 358. 8. Once that aspect ceased to be of any relevance for imposing any punishment, what remains is the failure of the respondent to inform the factum of his having been arrested. The explanation offered by the respondent was that there was none to pass on the information, once he was put in prison. Though no exception can be taken to the suspension of the respondent, the imposition of punishment of removal on the sole basis that he did not inform the factum of arrest cannot be sustained in law. The Labour Court has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to each and every charge. The learned Single Judge also accepted the findings recorded by the Labour Court and approved the relief granted by it. 9. We are of the view that though the punishment of removal is harsh, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the extension of the benefit of payment of full back wages, which run for a period of almost one decade cannot be justified. It is only when there was no blemish whatever on the part of the employee, such an absolute relief can be granted. It is felt that denial of 50% of back wages would meet the ends of justice. It is only when there was no blemish whatever on the part of the employee, such an absolute relief can be granted. It is felt that denial of 50% of back wages would meet the ends of justice. It is brought to our notice that the respondent has not only attained the age of superannuation, but also died in the recent past. Since what remains to be done is only the extension of retirement benefits, we do not intend to await the steps to bring the legal representatives on record. It is also asserted that the same learned counsel is representing the legal representatives also. 10. Therefore, the writ appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the award in I.D. No. 83 of 1999 to the effect that the back wages ordered therein shall be restricted to 50%. In all respects, the award shall remain. 11. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.