Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1538 (AP)

K. S. Reddy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC

2014-12-18

A.V.SESHA SAI, L.N.REDDY

body2014
Judgment L.N. Reddy, J. 1. Respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 1549 of 1995 filed this writ appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 29.08.2006. The facts, in brief, are as under. 2. The appellant was employed as a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 16.09.1968. He submitted his resignation on 29.10.1979 with a Clause that the resignation shall be effective from 03.01.1980. The resignation was accepted and the communication in this regard was given on 21.01.1980. 3. Complaining that he was not paid the retirement benefits for the services rendered by him, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 15.07.1987. The review was also dismissed on 11.02.1988. Thereafter, he filed I.D. No. 177 of 1993 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. Through award, dated 02.11.1993, the Labour Court directed the respondents to pay the retirement benefits by treating that the appellant has 20 years of service to his credit. The said award was challenged by the respondents by filing W.P. No. 1549 of 1995. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through order, dated 29.08.2006, mainly on the ground that the appeal preferred by the appellant was not statutory in nature and at any rate, there was no justification for preferring it after seven years, subsequent to the acceptance of the resignation. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The brief facts that led to the filing of the Industrial Dispute and the Writ Petition have been furnished in the preceding paragraphs. Though the Writ Petition was allowed on the ground that there was delay in availing the remedy of appeal and that the appeal itself was not statutory in nature, a strong circumstance militates against the appellant herein. 6. The cessation of employment of the appellant from the Corporation was on account of the resignation and not due to dismissal or removal from service. The disputes before an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court are in the form of reference by the appropriate Government. An aggrieved employee does not have direct access to the Labour Court. 6. The cessation of employment of the appellant from the Corporation was on account of the resignation and not due to dismissal or removal from service. The disputes before an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court are in the form of reference by the appropriate Government. An aggrieved employee does not have direct access to the Labour Court. The A.P. State Legislature amended the Act, by the introducing Section 2-A. Sub-Section (2) of Section 2-A of the Act enables an employee, who is dismissed or removed or terminated from employment to raise an industrial dispute straight away before the concerned Labour Court, without the necessity to approach appropriate Government for making reference. 7. In the instant case, the appellant filed I.D. No. 177 of 1993 before the Labour Court straight away. It was not on the basis of a reference made to the Government. It was not even pleaded that the appellant was removed from service. Hence, there did not exist any occasion at all, for him to approach the Labour Court directly. The Labour Court committed a serous legal error in entertaining the I.D. without verifying as to whether it fits into Section 2-A(2) of the Act at all. That one ground itself was sufficient to set at naught, the award passed by the Labour Court. Learned Single Judge took note of the manner in which the remedies were availed by the appellant. Though his resignation was accepted in January 1980, the appellant filed a departmental appeal only in the year 1987, that too when it is not of statutory nature at all. Even if there is any possibility to hold that the delay can be said to have been properly explained, the serious error in instituting the proceedings directly before the Labour Court cannot be rectified at all. 8. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. It is however directed that in case, the respondents have not released the benefits for the period, during which the appellants was in service, they shall release the same within two months from today. 9. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.