CHUNDURU MURALIDHARA RAO Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No.70 of 1992 dated 20-4-1994 insofar as it relates to denial of back wages. Consequential directions are sought against the respondents for payment of back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement and to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant with effect from 19-8-1988.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was a conductor employed by the respondent - APSRTC. He was suspended on 6-8-1988 pending enquiry for mis-behaviour and insubordination towards his higher authorities. On 17-7-1988, when he was on duty in Nellore town service, the petitioner is said to have demanded ticket from a Traffic Inspector and when the Traffic Inspector advised him to move the bus while collecting tickets and not to continuously sit while issuing tickets to the passengers, the petitioner is alleged to have become wild and demanded the Traffic Inspector to produce his warrant for travel and to prove his identity. The petitioner is alleged to have stopped the bus and created a scene in the presence of passengers and to have entered into a verbal clash with the Traffic Inspector forcing the latter to get down from the bus. On a complaint by the Traffic Inspector alleging insubordination by the petitioner-conductor, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, pursuant to which the petitioner was suspended on 6-8-1988, pending enquiry. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner levelling seven charges, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer gave his report holding that the charges were proved. The petitioner was issued a final show-cause notice and consequently removed from service. On his appeal being rejected by the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, the petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) The case of the respondent before the Labour Court was that the petitioner knew about the identity of the Traffic Inspector through a senior clerk travelling on the same bus, in spite of which, the petitioner refused to hand over the S.R. and instead demanded a ticket from the Traffic Inspector. The petitioner is stated to have stopped the bus causing inconvenience to the general public