Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.NEELADRI RAO
G.V.M.Reddy - Appellant
Versus
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Tirupathi - Respondent
Decided On : 11-06-92
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-FF - TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING - WORKMEN'S RIGHTS - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - DISMISSAL - REINSTATEMENT - DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a conductor in the transport wing of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), challenged his dismissal from service by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) after the transfer of the transport wing to APSRTC in 1975. The petitioner contended that he continued to be an employee of TTD and that APSRTC had no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. He also argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner became an employee of APSRTC upon the transfer of the transport wing from TTD to APSRTC in 1975 and that he ceased to be an employee of TTD from that date. The court also found that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was proper and that the charges against him were proved. However, the court held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and ordered the petitioner's reinstatement into service.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner continued to be an employee of TTD after the transfer of the transport wing to APSRTC? 2. Whether APSRTC had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner? 3. Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner became an employee of APSRTC upon the transfer of the transport wing from TTD to APSRTC in 1975 and that he ceased to be an employee of TTD from that date. The court relied on the provisions of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides for the transfer of workmen from one employer to another without their consent in the case of a transfer of an undertaking. 2. The court held that APSRTC had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as he was an employee of APSRTC at the time of the alleged misconduct. 3. The court held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, as the petitioner's misconduct involved a single act of misappropriation of a small amount of money.
Final Decision: The court ordered the petitioner's reinstatement into service by treating the period from the date of removal till the date the petitioner reports for duty as leave without pay.
( 1 ) THE petitioner herein joined service as servant and was promoted as Conductor in the transport wing of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short ttd ), Tirupathi. The said transport undertaking was taken over by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short apsrtc ) in pursuance of the agreement date August 8, 1975. The Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C. at Tirumala passed an order on July 4, 1988 suspending the petitioner pending enquiry. The said order of suspension was challenged in W. P. No. 11168 of 1988 by alleging that the petitioner continued to be the employee of the ttd and the authorities in APSRTC have no power to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him.
( 2 ) THE Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi i. e. , the respondent therein issued show cause notice dated May 31, 1989 requiring the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be removed from service. The said show cause notice is assailed in this writ petition. On June 14, 1989 the respondent passed an order removing the petitioner from service and it was served on him on June 17, 1989. In view of the subsequent circumstances, the petitioner filed W. P. M. P. No. 7710 of 1989 seeking permission to amend the prayer for quashing the order of removal from service dated June 14, 1989 and the same was allowed on July 19, 1989.
( 3 ) THE charges which were framed as against the petitioner as per the removal proceedings dated June 14, 1989 are : Charge No. 1 :"for having collected the requisite fare of Rs. 1. 25 each from a batch of two passengers who boarded your bus at Renigunta and found alighting at Tirupathi CBS. , ex-stages 3 to 1, which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg. 1963. "charge No. 2 :"for having closed the tray Nos. of all the ticket blocks in the SR upto stage No. 1, without completing the ticket issues, while conducting the bus on route Kandada to Tirupathi on December 21, 1988, which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg. 1963. "charge No. 3 :"for having violated the rule issue and start , while you were conducting the bus on route Kandada to Tirupathi on December 21, 1988, which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg. 1963. "
( 4 ) IT is stated for the respondent that after due enquiry, all the three charges were held as proved and hence the petitioner was removed from service by order dated June 14, 1989.
( 5 ) THE contentions for the petitioner are twofold : (1) The employees in the erstwhile transport wing of TTD are not the parties to the bipartite agreement dated August 8, 1975 and hence the petitioner and the other employees of the said transport wing are not bound by the terms of the said agreement and as such the petitioner continues to be the employee of the TTD; and (2) The punishment by way of removal for the charges said to have been proved is disproportionate to the misconducts said to have been proved and hence it is liable to be quashed.
( 6 ) THE contentions for the respondents are that in pursuance of the agreement dated August 8, 1975, the transport undertaking of TTD along with the buses and staff were taken over by the APSRTC and from that time the employees who continued to work in the said Transport wing had become the employees of the APSRTC. It is only the APSRTC that is paying the salaries to the petitioner and the other employees of the erstwhile transport wing of TTD who continued to work under APSRTC. Thus, the contention that the petitioner is not the employee of the APSRTC, merely because the employees had not joined in the agreement dated August 8, 1975, is baseless.
( 7 ) THE Supreme Court held in Roshan Lal v. Union of India 1968 - I - LLJ - 576 that though the origin of Government service is contractual, but once appointed to his post or office, the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties but
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
