C V RAMULU Vs. LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) The appellant was a Conductor in Mehadipatnam Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,Hyderabad. On 17-5-1974 a check was exercised and it was noticed that the appellant had not issued tickets to some passengers. A charge-memo was served on the appellant and after conducting a domestic enquiry,he was removed from service. he preferred an appeal which was dismissed. Thereupon he raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.Before the Labour Court,fresh evidence was adduced on both sides the labour Court held that the charges have been proved and accordingly passed an award confirming the order of the management removing the appellant from service. The petitioner thereupon filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court. Before the learned single Judge,two contentions were raised. (1) In the absence of a finding that the domestic enquiry was improper or defective,the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. (2) The Labour Court did not address itself to the question of the quantum of punishment. Both the contentions were repelled holding that though there is no implied finding that the domestic enquiry was not proper, the very fact that an opportunity was given to adduce fresh evidence shows that the Labour Court was satisfied that the enquiry conducted by the management was not proper and the absence of an express finding does not vitiate the order. On the question of punishment, the learned Judge held that the Labour Court considered the question and was satisfied that the penalty of removal was justified.Consequently,the Writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.V.Jagannadha Rao reiterated the same contentions before us. It is submitted that the Labour Court went wrong in permitting fresh evidence to be adduced without giving a specific finding about the legality and regularity of the domestic enquiry. In this connection,he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of F.T. & R. Co. v The Management 1 (1973)1 Lab LJ 278=(1973)1 SCC 813= (1973) Lab 1C 851=(1973) 3 SCR 587= A.I.R.1973 S.C.1227.