Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 607 (TS)

Depot Manager v. S. K. Jaffar

2024-08-28

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. Heard Sri A.Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the appellant and Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33505 of 2017, dated 14.07.2023, is under challenge in the present Writ Appeal. 3. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein, thereby confirming the Award dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) in I.D.No.12 of 2015. 4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Driver in the appellant-Corporation in the year 1987 and his services were regularized during the year 1988. While so, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 14.02.2005 to 26.02.2005, a charge sheet was issued to him; that the respondent submitted his explanation to the same on 03.03.2005; that not being convinced with the said explanation, enquiry was conducted; that the respondent participated in the enquiry; that on completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 08.03.2005 holding the charges levelled against the respondent as proved; that the disciplinary authority, after considering the said enquiry report and the comments/objections of the respondent, issued a show cause notice of removal from services to the respondent on 25.04.2005; and that thereafter, the final order of removal from service was passed, vide proceedings dated 11.05.2005. 5. The said final order of removal, dated 11.05.2005, sent to the respondent was returned unserved. Later, on the application of the respondent for supply of final order, the same was furnished to him on 23.11.2005. Challenging the said final order, the respondent approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.12 of 2015. The Labour Court vide Award dated 07.04.2016, set aside the order of removal, dated 11.05.2005, and directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and notional increments, but without any back wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation filed Writ Petition No.33505 of 2017 and learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2023 dismissed the said Writ Petition, confirming the Award of the Labour Court. Hence, the present Writ Appeal by the Corporation. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation filed Writ Petition No.33505 of 2017 and learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2023 dismissed the said Writ Petition, confirming the Award of the Labour Court. Hence, the present Writ Appeal by the Corporation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation among other contentions regarding unsustainability of the impugned order of the learned single Judge, principally contended that the respondent without availing the departmental remedies i.e., Appeal, Review and Revision, raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court with an inordinate delay of more than nine years, but neither the Labour Court nor the learned single Judge has adverted to the said delay, and by the long delay of nine years, the claim of the respondent became a stale claim. However, the learned single Judge has failed to consider the said fact and erroneously confirmed the Award of the Labour Court. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, prayed this Court to allow this Writ Appeal. 7. In support of his submissions, learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. R.K.Zalpuri and Others AIR 2016 SC 3006 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned single Judge has found that the absence of the respondent from duties was not willful and further, observed that as the respondent was absented from duties due to compelling circumstances, the same cannot be considered to be serious misconduct. Learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge passed the impugned order which is a well-reasoned one and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material available on record. 10. As seen from the record, it is evident that on conducting enquiry and following the due procedure under law, the punishment of removal from service was imposed by the appellant- Corporation on the respondent for his absence from duties from 14.02.2005 to 26.02.2005. Perused the entire material available on record. 10. As seen from the record, it is evident that on conducting enquiry and following the due procedure under law, the punishment of removal from service was imposed by the appellant- Corporation on the respondent for his absence from duties from 14.02.2005 to 26.02.2005. On raising dispute, vide I.D.No.12 of 2015, against the order of removal from service, the Labour Court held that the punishment of removal from service for the alleged absenteeism of the respondent is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and accordingly, directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and notional increments, but, without any back wages. 11. The appellant-Corporation challenged the order of the Labour Court before learned single Judge of this Court and the learned single Judge concurred with the observation of the Labour Court that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the respondent does not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct alleged against him and accordingly, confirmed the Award of the Labour Court. 12. A perusal of the record discloses that the respondent remained absent from duty for a period of 12 days i.e., from 14.02.2005 to 26.02.2005, for which he submitted an explanation stating that he fell sick on 16.02.2005 and as such, he underwent treatment from 16.02.2005 to 26.02.2005. The respondent also produced Discharge Certificate to prove that he was under medical treatment during the said period. Thus, it is evident that the absence of the respondent from duties was not willful, but only due to compelling circumstances, i.e., as he was taking treatment in a hospital for his sickness. However, the disciplinary authority without considering the same, passed the order of removal from service. 13. On consideration of the above, this Court is of the view that for the alleged misconduct i.e., absenteeism from duties for a short period of 12 days, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate and excessive. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly confirmed the Award of the Labour Court to the extent of directing the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly confirmed the Award of the Labour Court to the extent of directing the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. 14. As regards the second limb of the Award of the Labour Court i.e., granting continuity of service, all attendant benefits and notional increments, but without any back wages to the respondent, as was confirmed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order, the same needs to be reconsidered and adjudicated. 15. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the contention of the appellant-Corporation regarding the aspect of delay of more than nine years on the part of the respondent herein in approaching the Labour Court against the order of removal was not adverted to and considered by the Labour Court as well as by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. 16. Admittedly, the order of removal from service was passed on 11.05.2005. The record discloses that the said order was sent to the respondent through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, but the same was returned unserved with endorsement “Door Locked out of station since 7 days”. However, the respondent by submitting an application, has obtained a copy of the order of removal on 23.11.2005. Later, the respondent circumventing the departmental remedies to challenge the said order, i.e., Appeal, Review and Revision, approached the Labour Court and raised an Industrial Dispute in the year 2015, vide I.D.No.12 of 2015. The Labour Court without adverting or delving into the aspect of delay of nine years, has answered the said Dispute in favour of the respondent granting the benefits, as mentioned supra, while directing the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. 17. This Court finds that in the impugned order, the learned single Judge has also not adverted to the issue of delay of more than nine years on the part of the respondent in approaching the Court. Hence, the same needs to be adjudicated by this Court. 18. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that due to delay of more than nine years in challenging the order of removal, the claim of the respondent became stale claim and as such, the respondent is not entitled to the benefits granted by the Labour Court, as were confirmed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. 18. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that due to delay of more than nine years in challenging the order of removal, the claim of the respondent became stale claim and as such, the respondent is not entitled to the benefits granted by the Labour Court, as were confirmed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Zalpuri’s case (cited supra), wherein it is observed and held as under:- “A writ court while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ Petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injustice. The present case, needless to emphasize, did not justify adjudication. It deserved to be thrown overboard at the very threshold, for the writ Petitioner had accepted the order of dismissal for half a decade and cultivated the feeling that he could freeze time and forever remain in the realm of constant present.” 19. In the instant case, the respondent approached the Labour Court by raising an Industrial Dispute after a lapse of more than nine years from the date of passing the order of removal from service. This shows that the respondent was in a slumber for the period of more than nine years and woke up after the said period and knocked the doors of the Court at his leisure. No plausible explanation or reasons are urged by the respondent for the said delay in approaching the Court. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Zalpuri’s case (cited supra), the claim of the respondent became a stale claim on the ground of delay and laches on his part, which deserves no indulgence by the Court. 20. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge had lost sight of the said fact and erred in granting the benefits, as mentioned supra, while directing the appellant Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. 21. 20. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge had lost sight of the said fact and erred in granting the benefits, as mentioned supra, while directing the appellant Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that the alleged misconduct of absenteeism of the respondent from duties was only for a period of 12 days, that too, due to compelling reasons, and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Zalpuri’s case (cited supra), though the claim of the respondent is considered to be a stale claim, this Court to meet the ends of justice is inclined to modify the impugned order of the learned single Judge. 22. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.33505 of 2017, dated 14.07.2023, as under:- “The appellant-Corporation is directed to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service only for pension and other allied pensionary benefits, but without attendant benefits, notional increments and back wages.” 23. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.