PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, CJ:-

Question involved in this batch of cases for resolution by Full Bench referred to by a learned Single Judge is, whether the appellate or revisional authority of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') is justified in declining to entertain an appeal or revision preferred by an employee of the Corporation against the order imposing punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment(s) with cumulative effect on the ground of inordinate delay in preferring the appeal or revision notwithstanding that such punishment which was held to be a major penalty as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 504, cannot be sustained in law as no detailed procedure contemplated under the APSRTC Regulations for award of a major punishment has been followed. Question also arises for consideration whether the writ Court can decline to entertain a writ petition in similar circumstances?

2. The appellant in WA No. 1411 of 2012 and the petitioners in the other writ petitions are either Conductors or Drivers or other employees working in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. On certain cash and ticket irregularities or on certain other charges proceedings were initiated against them which ended in imposing the penalty of deferring annual grade increment(s) which have the effect on future increments. The appeals and revisions preferred by some of them against the orders of punishment were rejected on the ground of delay. Some of them have not preferred appeals/revisions but filed the writ petitions directly with inordinate delay. In some cases it was contended that no orders are passed on the appeals/revision. We have gone through all the writ petitions and we find that in effect in all these cases the delay ranges from 5 years to 18 years either in preferring the appeal or revision or filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. In WP No. 16435 of 2012 the workman who was working as conductor was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year which has the effect on his future increments by order dated 24.6.1992. The appeal which was filed in the year 2007 after a lapse of 15 years was dismissed by the appellate authority and the revision was also rejected on 17.5.2007. Subsequently, on filing a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, the Commissioner of Labour referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by proceedings dated 18.9.2010, which was dismissed. The Labour Court held that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is not a major punishment under the APSRTC Regulations and the workman has also failed to explain the inordinate delay in preferring the dispute before the Conciliation Officer and accordingly dismissed the Industrial Dispute. Aggrieved by the same the workman has filed the aforementioned writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge by the order under reference dated 17.7.2012 held that withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment under the APSRTC Regulations and the Labour Court committed an error in holding that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty.

5. Though, in this reference, we are not concerned with the said question, we may briefly refer to the said issue as the same has relevance to the core issue referred to for resolution. Regulation 8(1)(iv) of A.P.S.RT.C. Employees Regulations, 1967 (for short the Regulations') provide for imposing of penalty of withholding of increments. Clause (1) of Regulation 12 provides that the punishments covered by Regulation 8(1)(i) to 8(1) (vi) shall not be imposed except after the employee concerned is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and is given an opportunity to make any representation he may wi