Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A.V. SESHA SAI, J.
R.R. Chandraiah – Petitioners
Versus
Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6638 of 2011
Decided On : 21-01-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:G. Ravi Mohan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: GP for Labour and Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C.
IMPORTANT POINT
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 10—Termination—Labour Court, while setting aside order of termination, directed re-instatement of petitioner with continuity of service without back-wages and also directed deferment of four annual increments with cumulative effect—Contention that entitlement for increments is a sequel to continuity of service cannot be countenanced and approved---Same is neither automatic, nor inceptional, nor a natural corollary for continuity of service---Tribunal recorded categorical and cogent reasons in support of conclusions—Writ in nature of Certiorari can be issued when there is patent perversity---No such perversity in impugned award.
(B) Constitution of India—Articles 226 and 227—Writ petition—Delay—No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches—Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably---In the event that claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned—Where circumstances justifying conduct exist, illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on sole ground of laches—When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay—Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have emerged by delay on part of Petitioners.
Result—Writ Petition dismissed.
This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the award dated 30-08-2001 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur in I.D.No.161 of 1998 to the extent the same went against the petitioner.
Briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989 and he was terminated from service on 06-03-1997 followed by a departmental enquiry on the charge of un-authorized absence for the period from 24-03-1996 to 01-04-1996. After un-successfully availing the appellate and review remedies, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute No.161 of 1998 under Section 2 (A) 2 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, by way of an award, dated 30-08-2001, while setting aside the order of termination, directed re-instatement of the petitioner with continuity of service without back-wages and also directed deferment of four annual increments with cumulative effect.
In the above background, the present writ petition came to instituted. This Court ordered rule nisi on 16-03-2011.
Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Road Transport Corporation, apart from perusing the material available before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds raised in the writ affidavit, made the following submissions:
b. “The award of the Hon’ble 1st respondent in so far as further imposing punishment of deferring annual increments for period of 4 years with cumulative effect is illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of Hon’ble 1st respondent.
c. The Hon’ble 1st respondent having come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate ought not to have imposed further punishment of of deferring annual increments for period of 4 years with cumulative effect.
d. The Hon’ble 1st respondent failed to see that the petitioner has been explaining that due to piles disease he was unable to attend to his duties and he had no intention to avoid service. Inspite of requesting the 2nd respondent, they were not considered.
e. The Hon’ble 1st respondent has come to the conclusion on the ground that the petitioner past record is bad. It is submitted that the finding of the Hon’ble 1st respondent is nothing to do with the charge framed against the petitioner. It is not part of charge nor there is any pleading by the 2nd respondent nor there is any evidence to show that petitioner past record is bad. Therefore the finding of the Hon’ble 1st respondent is improper.
f. The Hon’ble 1st respondent has not assigned any reasons for denying attendant benefits and backwages and apart from that imposing punishment of deferring annual increments for period of 4 years with cumulative effect is illegal.
g. It is submitted that the Hon’ble 1st respondent failed to see that the petitioner worked for more than 5 years without any increment in his pay through he is entitle.
h. It is submitted that the petitioner’s pay has not been fixed till date, though he was reinstated into service in the month of January 2002 on the ground that his Plaintiff case was not traced and the petitioner has not filed the writ petition with fond hope that his pay will be fixed by adding increments. It is submitted that thought he is entitled for fixation of pay in the year 2007, petitioner has waited till date. Hence there is a delay in filing this present writ petition.
i. It is submitted that the petitioner is the only earning member of his family and due to the imposition of further punishment of deferring annual increments for period of 4 years with cumulative effect, it has become very difficult to eke out his lively hood as he is getting minimum salary.”
To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:
1)
