APSRTC Vs. AMJAD ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport 1. Corporation, assailing the validity of the orders passed by the Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, directing them to pay an amount of Rs. 77,884/- towards gratuity payable to the 1st respondent employee of the Corporation. The most relevant facts for our enquiry are:

(2.) The case of the Corporation is that the respondent employee has misappropriated the money belonging to the Corporation which was entrusted to him for disbursement towards payment of wages to various other staff members and contractual employees. The 1st respondent workman has only disbursed a portion of the money entrusted to him and did not disburse the rest of the money nor did he refund the said amount to the Corporation. He has neither accounted for the money entrusted to him nor did he report to duty after the irregularities committed by him on 03.09.1997 have been detected. He therefore, abandoned the employment. For the acts of misconduct committed by him, he was subjected to domestic enquiry and based upon the findings recorded at the domestic enquiry, final orders were passed removing him from service.

(3.) The questions that should have been adverted to and decided by the competent authority was, whether the 1st respondent workman was entitled to be paid gratuity and if so, how much amount and as to whether the APSRTC could have forfeited the whole of the said amount of gratuity or only a portion thereof. Instead of adverting to and deciding any of these questions, the competent authority has proceeded mechanically and determined the issue and quantified the amount of gratuity payable to the 1st respondent workman. No reasons are assigned as to why it has arrived at the conclusion. It is important to bear in mind that reasons are the live links between the mind of the decision-maker which manifest in his order. Sans reasons an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority would only reflect the mechanical attitude. Every adjudicatory body, either judicial or quasi-judicial, must assign reasons, which lend support to the conclusions drawn by them. Reasons will make the orders as well as the exercise carried out not only transparent but also convey the lines on which the mind of the quasi-judicial authority has been applied. It would also disclose as to whether any irrelevant considerations have weighed with him or not, while, at the same time, it would ensure that he has not missed out the relevant material.