M.R Naidu v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Anantapur And Others

(1) The conductor of apsrtc is the writ petitioner who was subjected to disciplinary action on the ground of misconduct while conducting the bus bearing no. Aaz 5959 proceeding on the road palamaner to tirupati on 5 - 6 - 1986. Six charges have been framed against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority has found those six charges having been proved, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service. Industrial dispute was raised and the labour court, ananthapur found that charges 2, 3 and 4 are negligible and the gravamen of the charges is in 1, 5 and 6. But discussion was made by the labour court on charge no. 1 and there was no discussion on the charges 5 and 6 and simply the labour court held that the charges 1, 5 and 6 are proved. As such, the only consideration is what is the quantum of punishment that can be awarded as to the finding of fact with regard to the proof of charge no. 1 which is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of powers under article 226 of constitution of india and the reappreciation of evidence is not ordinarily permissible under article 226. In the instant case, the finding of fact on charge no. 1 is properly recorded as there is a valid material supporting the same. As such, i hold that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct under charge no. 1. But, i do not see any justification for the labour court in refusing to grant any relief in exercise of the powers contained in section 11 - a of the industrial disputes act, 1947. The said provision was incorporated by empowering the courts to judge the proportionality of the sentence and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had served apsrtc as conductor for a decade from 1976 to 86 with an unblemished record and having regard to his age, as he is now aged about 51 years, when he cannot get any alternative employment and weighing the gravamen of the charge no. 1 and considering the effect of charge no. 1, involving an amount of rs. 105/ - , i feel that the harshest punishment of removal is disproportionate and a punishment less than that will meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances, while maintaining the finding with regard to misconduct under charge no. 1, the punishment of removal is set aside and instead, the petitioner shall be reinstated into service without back wages from the date of order of removal till the date of reinstatement. He shall also be not entitled for increments or for notional promotion reckoning the past period. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner with effect from 1 - 12 - 1993 and the petitioner shall be entitled to future increments and promotions only from 1 - 12 - 1993 onwards. However, the continuity of service is maintained.

(2) The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.