DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC PARKAL DEPOT Vs. S ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY , the 1st respondent was appointed as a Conductor on daily wage basis on 30.12.1983 and, subsequently, he was appointed on regular basis, with effect from 01.03.1984. On 12.02.1985, while he was conducting a bus between Jangaon to Ghanpur and on its return journey, it was checked at stage No. 6. It was found that as many as 12 passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No. 7, alighted at stage No. 6 without tickets. A charge memo was issued and departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that the charges framed against the 1st respondent were proved. Based on that, the appellant passed an order, dated 29.12.1985, removing the 1st respondent from service. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, 2nd respondent herein, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it was taken as I.D. No. 201 of 1988. Through its award, dated 24.04.1990, the Labour Court took the view that though there is some negligence in collecting fare from passengers, the punishment of removal of the 1st respondent from service is too harsh and disproportionate. Accordingly, the order of removal was set aside and the appellant herein was directed to appoint the 1st respondent as a Cleaner, afresh.

(2.) THE appellant filed W.P. No. 15178 of 1991 before this Court, challenging the award in I.D. No. 201 of 1988 and it was dismissed in the year 1993. Nine years thereafter, the 1st respondent filed W.P. No. 16213 of 2002, challenging the award and claiming the relief of reinstatement into service, with continuity of service and back wages. The appellant opposed the same. Through order, dated 20.09.2013, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing that the appointment of the 1st respondent, with effect from 04.10.1991, shall be treated as Conductor and not as Cleaner. In all other respects, the award was sustained. This Writ Appeal is filed, assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) SRI P. Pankaj Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the dismissal of W.P. No. 15178 of 1991 does not affect the right of the 1st respondent to work out his remedies. He further pleads that the delay in filing the present writ petition was, on account of the fact that the 1st respondent was subjected to mental agony and financial hardship and, at any rate, these grounds were not raised in the writ petition.