IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a nine-year delay in raising an industrial dispute does not automatically render the claim stale, but the punishment for absenteeism must be proportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

Heard Sri A.Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the appellant and Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33505 of 2017, dated 14.07.2023, is under challenge in the present Writ Appeal.

3. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein, thereby confirming the Award dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) in I.D.No.12 of 2015.

4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Driver in the appellant-Corporation in the year 1987 and his services were regularized during the year 1988. While so, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 14.02.2005 to 26.02.2005, a charge sheet was issued to him; that the respondent submitted his explanation to the same on 03.03.2005; that not being convinced with the said explanation, enquiry was conducted; that the respondent participated in the enquiry; that on completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 08.03.2005 holding the charges levelled against the respondent as proved; that the disciplinary authority, after considering the said enquiry report and the comments/objections of the respondent, issued a show cause notice of removal from services to the respondent on 25.04.2005; and that thereafter, the final order of removal from service was passed, vide proceedings dated 11.05.2005.

5. The said final order of removal, dated 11.05.2005, sent to the respondent was returned unserved. Later, on the application of the respondent for supply of final order, the same was furnished to him on 23.11.2005. Challenging the said final order, the respondent approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.12 of 2015. The Labour Court vide Award dated 07.04.2016, set aside the order of removal, dated 11.05.2005, and directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and notional increments, but without any back wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation filed Writ Petition No.33505 of 2017 and learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2023 dismissed the said Writ Petition, confirming the Award of the Labour Court. Hence, the present Writ Appeal by the Corporation.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation among other contentions regarding unsustainability of the impugned order of the learned single Judge, principally contended that the respondent without availing the departmental remedies i.e., Appeal, Review and Revision, raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court with an inordinate delay of more than nine years, but neither the Labour Court nor the learned single Judge has adverted to the said delay, and by the long delay of nine years, the claim of the respondent became a stale claim. However, the learned single Judge has failed to consider the said fact and erroneously confirmed the Award of the Labour Court. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, prayed this Court to allow this Writ Appeal.

7. In support of his submissions, learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. R.K.Zalpuri and Others AIR 2016 SC 3006.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned single Judge has found that the absence of the respondent from duties was not willful and further, observed that as the respondent was absented from duties due to compelling circumstances, the same cannot be considered to be serious misconduct. Learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge passed the impugned order which is a well-reasoned one and the