A. HANUMANTHU Vs. DEPOT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Conductor in the respondent Corporation (Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), was removed from service, based on certain cash and ticket irregularities, said to have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner, having raised an industrial dispute and having been unsuccessful, filed the present writ petition questioning the award, dated 23.10.2007 in I.D.No.18 of 2006 passed by the Labour Court III, Hyderabad, A.P.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner initially joined the service of the respondent Corporation as a Conductor in 1990 and continued to be in service until he was removed from service. On 08.11.2004, when the petitioner was conducting the bus of the respondent Corporation between Miryalguda and Kesavapuram (night-out), the respondent authorities exercised a check, and, having found certain cash and ticket irregularities, they charge-sheeted the petitioner. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation went ahead with the disciplinary proceedings, which eventually culminated in the removal of the petitioner through an order, dated 02.05.2005. Though an intra- departmental appeal was preferred, the same was dismissed as rejected on 24.10.2005, and later, even the revision preferred by the petitioner stood rejected through an order, dated 07.02.2006. Under those circumstances, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.18 of 2006 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, but even the Labour Court rendered a Nil award on 23.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent Corporation has not examined any witness before enquiry officer, nor has it marked any documents to bring home the misconduct of the petitioner. Thus, without any material support, based on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, contends the learned counsel, has imposed the capital punishment of removal from service on the petitioner in a mechanical manner through the order, dated 02.05.2005. He has further contended that even the appellate and revisional authorities have not chosen to examine the pleas raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel has laid much stress on the fact that even the Labour Court has failed to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for brevity) and has thus, committed a patent jurisdictional error in sustaining the order of the disciplinary authority of removal of the petitioner from service without any material at all. Thus, the learned counsel has urged this Court to set aside the award of the Labour Court and direct the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages.