Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
B.S. Raju – Petitioner
Versus
The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9017 of 2011
Decided On : 27-09-2016
For the Petitioner:S.M. Subhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Aravala Rama Rao, Standing Counsel,
Headnote:
Labour Law – Employment and Service matter – Disciplinary proceedings – Order of removal from service – Allegation against petitioner was issuance of less value tickets after collecting the requisite fare from the passengers – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities resulted in imposing the punishment of removal from service by order of disciplinary authority – Labour Court while upholding the disciplinary action held that the punishment of removal is excessive and modified the punishment to that of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect, but denied back wages. In compliance of the Award, petitioner was reinstated into service – Challenged – Held, when termination order is superseded by a less severe punishment, said punishment should come into effect from the date of original order of termination – As held by Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase reinstatement would mean putting the workman back to the stage when he was terminated. As a consequence to setting aside the order of removal, petitioner gets back to his position as prevailing on the date of his removal – On such reinstatement, punishment of removal gets substituted by the punishment of withholding of three annual increments for three years with cumulative effect – Annual increments due to petitioner in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002 stands deferred in view of the Award passed by the Labour Court and after 2002, petitioner is entitled to annual increment after rendering one year satisfactory service. The action of Respondent Corporation in applying the punishment of deferment of annual increments only from the year 2003 is erroneous – It would amount to imposing punishment of withholding six annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect – When Labour court prescribed particular punishment to be imposed, no higher punishment can be imposed – Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to apply the punishment of withholding of three annual increments for three years with cumulative effect from the date when he was removed from service – Petitioner is entitled to annual increment only after rendering one year satisfactory service after he was reinstated – Having regard to the facts of the case, petitioner is not entitled to payment of arrears of amounts payable to him on account of advancing the punishment to date of removal –Writ petition disposed of.
1. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Aravala Rama Rao learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader (AP) for respondent no.3.
2. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities resulted in imposing the punishment of removal from service by order of the disciplinary authority dated 03.05.2000. Appeal and revision filed against the said orders were rejected. Aggrieved thereby petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.196 of 2000 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Anantapur (for short the Labour Court). In the award dated 03.07.2002, the Labour Court while upholding the disciplinary action held that the punishment of removal is excessive and modified the punishment to that of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect, but denied back wages. In compliance of the Award, petitioner was reinstated into service on 17.10.2002. Challenging the Award to the extent of imposing the punishment of deferment of three annual increments with cumulative effect, this writ petition is filed.
3. On detailed consideration of the issue, the Labour Court concurred with the decision of Respondent Corporation holding the petitioner guilty of charge leveled against him. The allegation against petitioner was issuance of less value tickets after collecting the requisite fare from the passengers. However, Labour Court exercised its discretion to modify the punishment, holding the punishment of removal as excessive/disproportionate. Concurrently, the allegation leveled against petitioner is proved. This court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to different conclusion. There is no perversity in the finding of guilt. I do not see any illegality much less patent illegality on the award passed by the Labour court warranting interference by this Court.
4. When the Court expressed its prima facie view, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that even the modified punishment is not properly implemented and petitioner is also denied three annual increments due to him after his removal and till his reinstatement. He fairly submits that he would be satisfied if this is clarified and punishment is confined to deferment of three annual increments due to him as modified by the Labour Court are released.
5. Both counsel made submissions on the issue of scope of implementation of award of Labour court.
6.1. Mr Suban would submit that the labour court set aside the punishment of removal and directed imposition of punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect. The effect of modified punishment should relate back to the date of punishment of removal, where as the modified punishment is imposed after petitioner was admitted to duty and the same amounts to deferment of six annual increments and the same is ex-facie illegal.
6.2. In support of his contention, Mr.Suban, placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Sharda Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2009) 11 SCC 683); (ii) Sham Lal Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others (2009 Lawsuit (P&H) 2701) (iii) Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and others(2013) 10 SCC 324) (iv) Mahavir Prasad Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (Laws(DLH)-2014-7-248/AD(DEL)-2014-6-82).
7.1. On this the learned Standing counsel submitted that petitioner was removed from service on 03.05.2000 and till he was reinstated he was not performing duties. He would therefore, submit that petitioner is not entitled to increments for the period when he was not performing the duties. He would further submit that after reinstatement in compliance of the award, three annual increments were deferred for the years October 2003, October 2004 and October 2005 and on completion of one year service thereafter, increments due were released on 17.10.2006. He would submit that this action is legal and valid and that
