S JAGAN REDDY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner, since deceased, being a workman of the respondent Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.), filed the Writ Petition assailing the Award dated 11.07.2007 in I.D. No. 102 of 2005 passed by the 3rd respondent-Labour Court, which in fact returned a 'Nil' Award, thus confirming the punishment of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority on the first petitioner. The facts, in brief, are that the first petitioner, appointed as cleaner in the respondent Corporation, had his services regularised on 01.11.1994 as Shramik. On 11.02.2005, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on the allegation that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty between 12.01.2005 and 24.01.2005, thereby causing dislocation of work in the garage of the respondent Corporation. Since the first petitioner/deceased workman did not submit his explanation, the Corporation went ahead with a departmental enquiry. Based on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the Corporation issued a final show cause notice on 26.01.2005; even the said notice, though was received, remained unreplied by the first petitioner. Eventually, the Disciplinary Authority of the Corporation imposed the major punishment of removal from service through Order dated 05.04.2005. Though intra departmental appeal and later revision were filed, both were dismissed by the authorities concerned through Orders dated 15.06.2005 and 26.09.2005 respectively. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the deceased workman raised an Industrial dispute in I.D. No. 102 before the 3rd respondent-Labour Court, which passed a Nil award dated 11.07.2007. Further, aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Pending the disposal of the writ petition, as the said workman died, his wife brought herself on record as the 2nd petitioner through Orders of this Court dated 02.12.2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 31996 of 2008.

(2.) In the above factual backdrop, Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the punishment of removal from service inflicted on the deceased workman is illegal, unjust and is further grossly disproportionate. The learned counsel has stated that though the deceased workman was absent from duty for one week, the Disciplinary Authority went through the motions of the departmental enquiry in a ritualistic manner, and, eventually, inflicted the punishment in a mechanical manner without applying his mind. It is contended that the deceased workman had been suffering from serious illness of Tuberculosis and that in view of the said illness, the deceased workman had been hospitalised intermittently, thus forcing him to be absent from duty. The learned counsel has further submitted that despite the workman bringing on record the ameliorating factors as to his illness, even the 3rd respondent-Labour Court, refusing to exercise its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for brevity), confirmed the orders of the authorities of the Corporation. Contesting the claim of the Corporation that the deceased workman received the notices on both occasions, but did not submit any explanation, the learned counsel has submitted that assuming that it were to be true, still the authorities were not absolved from their legal obligation to inflict the major punishment only based on proven facts brought on record in a legally recognised manner. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India and others, 1999 9 SCC 86and also in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Rawel Singh, 2008 4 SCJ 743. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in C. Basaiah v. APSRTC, 2009 1 ALT 183 apart from a Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gopal Das Rawat v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, LAWS (ALL) 1993 (9) 67.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has vehemently opposed the claims and contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the deceased workman had been habituated to unauthorized absence and that he had been given a long rope on previous occasions. Elaborating his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that his conduct of negligence is evident from the fact that though notices were served on two occasions, seeking explanation to the charges framed against him, and later with regard to punishment proposed to be inflicted on him based on the enquiry report, the petitioner deliberately ignored to respond, thus leaving the Disciplinary Authority with no other option than imposing the punishment, based on the material available on record.