Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GHULAM MOHAMMED
APSRTC REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
M.Ramulu, Ex-Casual Driver - Respondent
Decided On : 11-09-99
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33 - Section 333 - Section 10 - Section 2 - Facts leading to filing of this writ petition can be briefly summarised as follows first respondent herein who is petitioner before Labour court-II was a casual driver on daily wages - While driving vehicle bearing Regd he caused an accident while negotiating a curve shaped road collided with a scooter bearing resulting death of scooterist and a pillion rider sustained injuries - Police, Bhongir registered a case against respondent due to negligent driving of said bus - Accordingly petitioner- corporation passed an order whereunder first respondent was kept under put off duty pending disciplinary action against him - On same day a charge-sheet was issued by Depot Manage, bearing which reads as follows it is alleged and reported by TI-II, depot vide reference cited that vehicle plying on route and met with an accident at Kattamaisamma temple due to which a scooterist succumbed to injuries on spot and pillion rider was died in hospital based on above undermentioned charge is levelled against you: charge for having driven vehicle while operating in rash and negligent manner and with lack of anticipation resulting which a scooterist was succumbed to injuries on spot and pillion rider was also died in Hospital, which constitutes serious misconduct as per A - P - S - R - T - C Employees regulations 28 please submit your explanation within seven days from date of receipt of this charge-sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you, failing which, it will be assumed that charge is admitted by you and further action will be initiated against you based on evidences available on record - Please acknowledge receipt - Sd/- Depot Manager - Thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted by petitioner-Corporation - On 10-10-1995 a show cause notice was issued to first respondent herein proposing punishment of termination from service besides placing him under put Off Duty with effect - Consequently petitioner-Corporation terminated services of first respondent by passing an order of removal – Held , In instant case respondent is not claiming over and above amount but he claimed only Rs - 87/- per day as he was entitled to receive since he was prevented from discharging his duty by employer for period by an order where under petitioner was kept on put off duty - In a decision in Chief Superintendent, government Livestock Farm, controversy pertains to a daily wage employee and filing of application claiming pay and allowances equal to that of a regular employee - In that case supreme Court has held that application is not maintainable - Here in instant case respondent is not claiming regular scale on par with regular employees, but he claimed only daily wages - However, principle laid down in said decision of Apex Court is aptly applicable to facts of this case - relevant portion of said judgment is extracted hereunder which reads as follows remedy of Industrial Disputes Act is available only when there is no dispute about entitlement of workman - That remedy cannot be invoked in a case where entitlement is disputed - In instant case, entitlement of respondent to regular scale was disputed by appellant and, therefore, it was not a case in which remedy could be invoked - Proper course for respondent was to have his entitlement to regular scale determined by a competent Court or Tribunal and in event of non-payment of amount payable to him as per his entitlement under such determination he could invoke remedy - Writ petition is dismissed
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation, represented by it s Managing Director, Hyderabad, for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in Miscellaneous petition No. 57 of 1997, dated 18-9-1998, wherein the Labour Court directed for the payment of wages of Rs. 19,123/- to the first respondent for the period from 23-2-1995 to 8-11-1995 when the first respondent was kept under put- off duty.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this writ petition can be briefly summarised as follows: the first respondent herein who is the petitioner before the Labour court-II was a casual driver on daily wages from 9-3-1992. While driving the vehicle bearing Regd. No. AP9z-7643 on 23-2-1995 he caused an accident while negotiating a curve shaped road collided with a scooter bearing no. AEY-8821 resulting the death of the scooterist and a pillion rider sustained injuries. The Police, Bhongir registered a case against the respondent No. 1 due to negligent driving of the said bus. Accordingly the petitioner- corporation passed an order on 14-3-1995 whereunder the first respondent was kept under put off duty pending disciplinary action against him. On the same day i. e. , on 14-03-1995 a charge-sheet was issued by the Depot Manager, sanagareddy, bearing No. P4/2 (7)/95dm:srd, which reads as follows:"it is alleged and reported by the TI-II, Sangareddy depot vide reference cited that vehicle No. AP9z-7643 plying on route Sangareddy to yadagirigutta and met with an accident at Kattamaisamma temple (4 Kms. away from Yadagirigutta) due to which a scooterist named sri N. Rajendra Prasad aged 28 years succumbed to injuries on the spot and pillion rider Sri N. Goverdhan Reddy aged 30 years was died in hospital, Bhongir. "based on the above the undermentioned charge is levelled against you: charge No. 1: "for having driven the vehicle No. AP9z-7643 on 23-2-1995, while operating from Sangareddy to yadagirigutta in rash and negligent manner and with the lack of anticipation resulting which a scooterist was succumbed to injuries on the spot and pillion rider was also died in the Hospital, which constitutes serious misconduct as per A. P. S. R. T. C Employees (Conduct) regulations 28 (ix-b) 1963" please submit your explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of this charge-sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you, failing which, it will be assumed that the charge is admitted by you and further action will be initiated against you based on the evidences available on record. Please acknowledge the receipt. Sd/- Depot Manager, sangareddy Depot. Thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted by the petitioner-Corporation. On 10-10-1995 a show cause notice was issued to the first respondent herein proposingpunishment of termination from service besides placing him under put Off Duty with effect from 14-3-1995. Consequently on 20-10-1995 the petitioner-Corporation terminated the services of the first respondent by passing an order of removal.
( 3 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) which suffers from various infirmities, namely, the claim under Section 333-C (2) is not maintainable but the claim has to be decided only under Section 10 of the Act. The Labour Court failed to see that the services of the respondent were terminated on proved misconduct and the order of termination is the subject-matter of dispute in I. D. No. 1 of 1996 which is still pending. The application filed before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) is not maintainable and the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the said application. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that the daily wage worker is not an employee within the mean
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
