APSRTC Vs. T. KRISHNAMACHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.07.2015 in Writ Petition No. 23391 of 2000. The Writ Petition referred to supra as well as the present Writ Appeal are preferred by the management of the State Road Transport Corporation.

(2.) The 1st respondent workman was employed as a Conductor with the State Road Transport Corporation. While he was conducting a service on 20.05.1984 plying between Medak and Degloor, the service was subjected to a surprise check at stage No. 23 at about 9.55 hours. When the checking officials noticed that several passengers were alighting from the bus without purchasing any tickets, the 1st respondent Conductor was subjected to disciplinary action on the ground that he had failed to collect the fare from the passengers, who boarded the bus and also failed to issue them the tickets. The defence of the 1st respondent Conductor was that the bus has stopped at the bus stop at Jukal, stage No. 22, but however, several passengers have boarded the bus after the bus has left Jukal bus stop and the distance between Jukal and the next stage No. 23 is too short a distance and in fact, the Conductor was in the process of issuing tickets. Since the bus has reached stage No. 23 and stopped as signalled by the checking officials, the Conductor is not completely at fault in not collecting fare and not issuing tickets to some of the passengers found in the bus. The explanation of the respondent Conductor was not accepted. The Corporation has proceeded to impose on him the major punishment of removal from service, on 21.11.1984. Thereupon, an Industrial Dispute was raised under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Ultimately, the said I.D. was re-numbered, upon being transferred from one forum to the other, as I.D.No. 248 of 1993. The Labour Court-II, Hyderabad decided that I.D.No. 248 of 1993 (old I.D. No. 36 of 1990) on 15.02.1994. In paragraph 5, this is what the Labour Court has observed:

(3.) It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent has been reinstated to duty as a Conductor on 12.07.1994 and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the workman would also inform us that the workman has since attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service of the Corporation as well. However, taking the direction issued by the Labour Court of reinstatement into service without break in service as implying payment of notional increments, upon reinstatement, the workman has taken out M.P. No. 10 of 1996 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. That Miscellaneous Petition has been moved under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Act. The management of the Corporation has resisted it, but however, by an order passed on 19.03.1999, the Labour Court directed the management to compute the entitled amount of the petitioner by taking into consideration that the petitioner 's pay should be fixed at Rs.2,805.00 and then calculate the entitled amount and thereafter two annual grade increments be deferred with cumulative effect and the balance amount is to be paid to the workman. This order dated 19.03.1999 has not been complied with by the management. Hence, the workman has initiated Execution Proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour seeking payment of Rs.78,986.55 Ps. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour transmitted the Execution Proceedings to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Junior Civil Judge 's Court at Narayankhed and the said Court passed an order on 14.11.2000 in E.P. No. 25 of 2000 for attaching one of the buses owned and operated by the Road Transport Corporation for recovery of amount of Rs.78,986.55 Ps. It is calling in question this order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge 's Court at Narayankhed, Writ Petition No. 23391 of 2000 was filed. In the affidavit filed in support of the said Writ Petition, in paragraph 8, this is what has been stated, inter alia,