Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10274
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPOT SECRETARY ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EMPLOYEES UNION, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF SMT. B. JAYAMMA – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 14845/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC)
For the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
The High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision to set aside the punishment due to lack of evidence, emphasizing limited scope for reviewing such disciplinary actions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Labour Law - Review of disciplinary action - The workman was punished for insubordination; however, the Labour Court set aside the punishment due to insufficient evidence establishing fault. The High Court affirmed this conclusion, noting the limited scope for judicial review unless the decision is perverse. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 11 - The Labour Court correctly interpreted its authority to evaluate disciplinary actions and determined that the materials did not substantiate the employer's claims against the workman. Findings emphasized the deference owed to procedural fairness in adjudicating labour disputes. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
A conductor was punished for not following instructions leading to withheld increments. The Labour Court found insufficient basis to sustain this punishment.
Findings of Court:
The High Court supports the Labour Court, ruling that no grounds for interference existed in their award.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court acted appropriately by setting aside the punishment imposed upon the workman due to lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized the limitations of judicial review concerning disciplinary decisions made by labour courts, reinforcing the principle of procedural fairness.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. threshold issue of insubordination (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments supporting validity of punishment (Para 3) |
| 3. judicial review limitations (Para 4) |
| 4. final decisions on labour court's findings (Para 5) |
| 5. writ petition outcome (Para 6) |
ORDER:
Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for petitioner-
Corporation and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the 2nd respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the individual, who is Conductor, did the act of insubordination, due to which, she was awarded the punishment of withholding annual increments for a period of two years, which shall have affect on her future increments. Appeal preferred by the workman was rejected. The Labour Court interfered in the punishment and allowed the I.D. preferred by the workman without any sufficient reason. Learned counsel would submit that the workman being Conductor, has to oblige the instructions of her superiors. The workman, in the present case, deviated the words of Superintendent (Traffic). Due to which, the punishment was awarded. Learned counsel prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Labour, supports the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
4. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the judicial review on the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, the scope is very limited, except the order is perverse and it was passed ignoring the important material placed before the Court. A fair look at the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, there are clear observations to the effect that except the report of the Superintendent (Traffic) and her statement, which was recorded during the preliminary enquiry, no other material is placed on record to show that the workman was at fault. Even as per the report, the workman clearly stated that 20 passengers boarded at the bus stand itself and bus started and was halted outside the bus stand and there passengers were boarding the bus and the workman was issuing tickets to the passengers and at that time the STI approached the bus and asked to divert the service and he did not listen the conversation that went on between the said STI and the workman.
5. In that view, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has exercised their power under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence, there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court in the award passed by the Labour Court.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
