Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Divisional Manager, APSRTC - Appellant
Versus
E.Raja Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 10-04-99
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 11-A - REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT - FULL BENCH DECISION IN G. R. REDDY CASE - APPLICABILITY - CONDUCTOR REISSUING TICKETS - REINSTATEMENT - VALIDITY OF DOMESTIC INQUIRY - ADMISSION BY WORKMAN - SCOPE OF INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 11-A.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, directing reinstatement of the first respondent-conductor into service with continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits, including full back wages. The first respondent was served with a charge memo framing four charges against him, including reissuing tickets that were already issued and accounted for. The first respondent submitted his explanation and the petitioner ordered a regular disciplinary inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found the first respondent guilty of all the charges and submitted his inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority passed an order removing the first respondent from service. The first respondent filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) questioning the order of removal. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record, passed the impugned award directing reinstatement of the first respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court is clothed with the power and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence available on record and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by the employer establishes the misconduct alleged against the employee, even in cases where the domestic enquiry was valid and proper. The Labour Court, under Section 11-A of the Act, has the jurisdiction and power to substitute its own opinion with regard to the measure of punishment in the place of the disciplinary authority, once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. The Labour Court can always go into the proportionality of the punishment.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and substitute its own findings for that of the disciplinary authority? 2. Whether the Labour Court can completely substitute its own view with regard to the quantum of punishment in purported exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Act? 3. Whether the exercise of power by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act is in accordance with law and well-established principles in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Labour Court/tribunal is vested with all the powers which are normally exercised by the appellate authority by way of reappraising the evidence and setting aside the findings and also imposing reasonable punishment. 2. The Labour Court/tribunal has the power to come to an independent conclusion on the evidence recorded during the domestic inquiry. 3. The Labour Court/tribunal can also find that the evidence justifies the finding of misconduct arrived at by the domestic authorities and still hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified under the circumstances of a particular case and award lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal. 4. The Labour Court/tribunal is duty bound to consider whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the proved misconduct. 5. The Labour Court/tribunal can interfere with the order of discharge or dismissal only when it is satisfied that such order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. 6. The High Court, in exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction, may not normally interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court/tribunal in awarding appropriate punishment, if such Award does not suffer from any legal infirmities. 7. The High Court, in appropriate cases, may interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court/tribunal when it substitutes the punishment and awards a lesser punishment than the one awarded by the disciplinary authority in an arbitrary and fanciful manner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the Labour Court was entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding for that of the disciplinary authority. Such a re-appreciation of the evidence and the material on record is permissible even in cases where the Labour Court is required to consider the matter in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Act.
( 1 ) THE Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in this writ petition challenges the Award passed by Labour Court, Godavarikhani, directing reinstatement of the first respondent herein into service of the Corporation, as Conductor with continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits, including full back wages. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award dated: 28-8-1989 in ID No. 271 of 1989 on the file of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani and quash the same.
( 2 ) IT may be necessary to notice few relevant facts for adjudicating the issues that arise for consideration and as to the validity of the impugned Award. The first respondent herein was served with a charge memo dated 23-9-1986 framing the following four charges against him:1. For having reissued three tickets of Rs. 4. 50 ps. Denomination bearing Nos. 606 to 608 at Stage No. 13 which were already issued and accounted having sold at the stage No. 11 in the S. No. 410/52724 dated 27-6-1986, while conducting bus No. AAZ 8380 on route Adilabad-Hyderabad via Utnoor duly altering the failure 609 to read as 608 and later striking it off by an horizontal line and writing 606 in the side column and also altering the figures of issue from 9 to 8 and later to 6, as if only 6 tickets were sold instead of 9 at stage No. 11. 2. For having reissued on ticket of Rs. 5. 00denomination bearing No. 181 at stage No. 9 which was already issued and accounted having sold at Stage No. 10 in the SR No. 425/26609 dated 3-8-1986 while conducting the bus No. AAZ 7686 on route Khammam-Adilabad, duly altering the figures 182 to read as 181 and later striking it off by an horizontal line and writing 181 in the side column and also altering the figure of issues from 10 to 9, as if only 9 tickets were issued at Stage No. 10. 3. For having reissued one ticket bearing No. 461 of Rs. 2. 00 denomination at stage No. 11 which was already issued and accounted having sold at stage No. 17 in the SR No. 395/39495, dated 9-7-1986, while conducting bus No. AAZ 8380 on route Hyderabad-Adilabad via Nizamabad duly altering the figure 462 to read as 461 from Stage No. 17 to Stage No. 11 and also altering the figure of issues as 2 from that of 3 at stage No. 17 and by showing the figure 1 in the issues column illegible with over writing against stage No. 11. 4. For having reissued one ticket of Rs. 1. 50 ps. denomination bearing No. 727 at stage No. 8 which was already issued and accounted having sold at stage No. 9 in the SRNo. 52613 dated 24-8-1986 while conducting the bus No. AAZ 7747 on route Hyderabad-Adilabad, via Karimnagar and Armoor duly altering the figure 728 to 727 against stage Nos. 9 and 8 and altering the figure of issues as 8 from that of 7.
( 3 ) THE first respondent submitted his explanation dated 7-10-1986 to the charge-sheet saying that his explanation dated 29-9-1986 submitted to the charge memo may be treated as explanation to the charge-sheet dated 30-9-1986. The petitioner having received the explanation ordered for regular disciplinary inquiry into the charges. In the course of inquiry into the charges. In the course of inquiry the Senior Traffic Inspector was examined in proof of the charges levelled against the first respondent and the first respondent himself examined in his defence. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Inquiry Officer found the first respondent guilty of all the charges and submitted his inquiry report and proceedings to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority having reached a provisional conclusion that the charges were proved against the first respondent herein directed a show-cause notice requiring the first respondent s explanation in the matter as to why he should not be removed from the service of the Corporation. The inquiry report and the proceedings were made available to the first respondent along with the show-cause. The
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
