ORDER:

r- C THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT APPEAL No.1028 0F 20 18 JUDGMENT: (t'er tlLe t !or't'ble the Chief JLtstice Ltjjal BhuAan)

Heard Mr. V.Narasimha (]oud. learned counsel for the appellant workman and Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned standing counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) lor the respondents employer.

2.

This appeal is before the Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide the order dated 11.12.2018. Referral order dated 11.12.2018 reads as under:

Having hcard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.Mayrrr Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel, who was asked to assist this Court as an amicus curiae, we are of the opinion that in the light of the judgment rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in B.Vidga Sagar Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC '2006 (4)

ALD 507], with which we are unable to subscribe !

l our agreement, it would be appropriate that the issue raised before us be resolved by a larger Bench.

It may be noted that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was the subject-matter of reference to a Full Bench, but by order dated 14.07.2011, the Full Bench did not answer the issue.

The issue relates to whether Section 2-A(t) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would require a challenge being made to the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination as a condition precedent for a dispute to be raised with regard to any other issue that may be 'connected with or arising out ol such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination for the said dispute to constitute an'industrial dispute'.

The decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in K.Karunakar Vs. APSR?C Hgderabad 12006 (2\ ALD 3531, pima facie, appears to lay down the correct law and not the Division Bench judgment in B.Vidga Sagar Vs. Depot Manager, AP.SRTC.

3. The question which has been referred to the Ful1 Bench is whether the remedy of Section 2-A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be availed only when a chalienge is made to the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of a workman or it can also be availed in case of a dispute that may be connected I J G u.)ith or arising out o/ such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the workman to constitute an industrial dispute notwithstanding Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

4.

Reiated to the above issue, there are primarily two decisions of this Court, one by a Single Bench and the other by a Division Bench. In the referral order dated Ll.12.2O18, the Division Bench opined that the decision of the Single Bench in K.Karunakar v. APSRTC, lays down the correct law and not the Division Bench decision in B.Vidyasagar v. Depot Manager, APSRTC2.

5. Though not very relevant, still for a proper perspective it is necessary to briefly advert to the relevant facts. Appellant is a workman. He had joined serv1ce under the respondents as a conductor in the year 2000, his service being regularised on 01.08.200I . He was removed from service by the third respondent on 14.09.2015 on the allegation that he was involved in cash ' zooo 121 nlo :s:

I elo zooe 1ay sot and ticket irregularities on 23.02.2O 15 while discharging duty in Kalwakurthy to Hyderabad route. He had assailed the removal order in appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 03.03.2016. Revision petition filed thereafter was also rejected by the revisional authority on 24.03.2016. Thereafter, he preferred review under Regulation 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Regulations, 1967 (briefly, 'the Regulations' hereinafter) before the second respondent who passed an order dated 18.11.2016 modifying the punishment of removal from service by the punishment of reduction in pay by two incremental stages having cumulative effect, with the period from the date of rem