DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been instituted on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Limited (henceforth referred to as 'the Transco') calling in question the validity and legality of the Award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D. No. 149 of 1999 on 30-10-2000, which was published on 24-04-2001.

(2.) The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short The Board), was the predecessor in interest of the Transco. The Board was created in terms of Section 48 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. It had employed several persons on casual basis, on contract basis and also to work as Village Electricity Workers. By virtue of a settlement arrived at with the recognized trade union, the Board has taken a policy decision to absorb certain categories of employees in its service on regular basis and the scheme in this regard containing terms and conditions, subject to which the absorption has to be ordered, has all been spelt out through their B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18-05-1997. The eligible persons were required to be absorbed into the category of Junior Lineman, L.D. Clerk/Typist and Sub Engineers. The 2nd Respondent workman worked as a Village Electricity Worker and, thus, became qualified for consideration of absorption. He was subjected to the process of selection including interview for appointment as Junior Lineman on 17-09-1997. Since, he was one of the selected candidates, the Transco offered him appointment as Junior Lineman on 28-04-1998 in their Guntur Division. The 2nd Respondent workman accepted the same and started performing his duties with effect from 30-04-1998. When the Transco received a complaint against one other individual, who is also selected like the 2nd Respondent workman, that bogus educational certificate was produced by such individual, it ordered for investigation into the complaint into the educational qualifications produced by the 2nd Respondent workman also. As a part of the inquiry, when the matter was taken up with the Headmaster, Zilla Parishad High School, Medikonduru, Guntur District, the said Headmaster through his letter dated 24-07-1998, has set out that there is no record in the school in proof of issuing the certificate in favour of the 2nd Respondent workman, which was produced by him. That triggered the disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd Respondent workmen by issuing a charge sheet to him on 09-04-1999 and the explanation of the 2nd Respondent workman was called for. In response thereto, the 2nd Respondent workman, is said to have, admitted that there was some mistake that crept into the matter and solicited to be pardoned. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, did not prefer to examine any witnesses, but however, examined the 2nd Respondent workman and based there on concluded his inquiry holding the 2nd Respondent workman guilty of the charges framed against him. While enclosing a copy of the Inquiry Report, a show cause notice was issued on 09-07-1999, proposing to dismiss the 2nd Respondent workman from service. The 2nd Respondent workman got issued a legal notice in response thereto on 03-08-1999. Ultimately, the Divisional Engineer (Operations) of Transco, Guntur, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the 2nd Respondent workman through his Proceedings dated 18-08-1999. This gave raise to an industrial dispute being raised by the said workman before the Labour Court bearing I.D. No. 149 of 1999.

(3.) The 2nd Respondent workman has contended before the Labour Court that the inquiry was not conducted properly and that the principles of natural justice have been violated in the process and that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse and that he has been denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of establishing his defence as the Transco failed to examine the Headmaster of the school, who has issued the certificate, which formed the basis for the disciplinary action against him. Importantly, it was contended that the Transco cannot place any reliance upon the Disciplinary Regulations or the Conduct Regulations framed by it, inasmuch as they have not been got published by the Government and further no Standing Orders have been got certified and published in accordance with the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. Therefore, the whole process undertaken by the Transco is contrary to law and hence, the order of punishment of dismissal from service is liable to be set at naught.