DISTRICT MANAGER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KUKATPALLI BUS DEPOT HYDERABAD Vs. LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions, one by the Management viz., W.P. No. 3371/79 (for short, the respondent) and another viz., W.P. No. 4105/80 filed by the employee (for short the petitioner) have been filed to quash the Award in I.D. No. 118/76 passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts, not in dispute, are that the petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in its Depot at Kukatpalli. On 16/10/1975 while the petitioner was conducting the bus APZ. 685, the Checking Inspector, at Stage No. 8 i.e., Punjagutta Police Station, made a surprise check and called upon the petitioner to produce Statistical Return and ticket tray. the petitioner refused to surrender them and thereby prevented the employer or other public servant in discharge of his official duties, constituting serious misconduct as per Regulation 9(1), Note 2(xiii) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short, CCA, Regulations). Pursuant to a domestic enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Dissatisfied with the enquiry, a dispute has been raised and the Government have referred the dispute under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act). After adducing of evidence on either side, the Labour Court recorded 3 finding that the petitioner had interfered with the discharge of lawful duties by the T.T.I., and prevented him from doing his legitimate duties by refusing to hand over the S.R., and tickets-tray at the time of check. Thus, it held that the petitioner had committed misconduct. But, however, in view of the fact and circumstances, the Labour Court held that the punishment of removal was shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred under S. 11-A of the Act, it held that the petitioner is not entitled to back-wages, but ordered reappointment of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent filed the writ petition contending that the direction regarding reinstatement is not one of the modes of punishment provided under Regulation 9 of C.C.A. Regulations and that the Labour Court has exceeded the power in awarding that punishment. The petitioner filed the writ petition contending that the finding of misconduct recovered by the Labour Court is vitiated by error of law.