APSRTC Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent (for short "the respondent") was employed as a conductor in the APSRTC. A charge sheet, dated April 29, 1999, was issued to him, alleging certain irregularities, in the matter of accounting the bundles of tickets of various denominations. He was also placed under suspension. Domestic enquiry was ordered, but the respondent did not participate in it. Complaining that the subsistence allowance was not paid and that documents were not supplied, the respondent approached this Court, more than once. Ultimately, through order dated February 12, 2002, the 2nd petitioner removed the respondent from service. Appeal filed against the same, before the 1st petitioner, was also rejected on January 9, 2003. Thereupon the respondent filed I. D. No. 8/2003, before the labour Court-Ill, Hyderabad. Through its award dated February 7, 2005, the Labour Court allowed the I. D. , setting aside the order of removal, and directed reinstatement of the respondent, with continuity of service, full back wages, and attendant benefits. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court did not deal with the matter on merits, though very serious charges were framed and proved against the respondent. He contends that the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal, only on the ground that subsistence allowance was not paid in time, and in view of the fact that the said issue was the subject matter of various proceedings before this Court, it was totally outside the scope of the powers of the Labour Court.

(3.) SRI V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client was disabled from participating in the domestic enquiry, on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, and following the judgment of the Supreme Court in jagadamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U. P. 2000 scc (Lands) 825, the Labour Court had granted the relief.