LAWS(APH)-2008-6-64

A R SWAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 30, 2008
A R SWAMY Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed in the Kavali depot of A. P. S. R. T. C. , as Mechanic. He was issued a charge-sheet dated November 30, 2002, by the Depot Manager, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated February 19, 2003, imposing the punishment of deferment of increment, for a period of six months, without cumulative effect. Departmental appeal filed against the order, before the Divisional manager, was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner approached the 1st respondent, with a request to refer the dispute, that arose out of the order of punishment dated february 19, 2003, to the Labour Court, for adjudication. Conciliation was undertaken, and it failed. As regards the reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, the 1st respondent issued letter dated July 23, 2007, informing the petitioner that since he had already retired from service in the year 2003 itself, it is not feasible to accede to the request. It was also observed that there does not exist any relationship of employer and employee, between the petitioner ana the A. P. S. R. T. C. Petitioner challenges the letter dated July 23, 2007, issued by the 1st respondent.

(3.) HEARD Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Labour, and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') provides for the machinery, and prescribes the procedure, for resolution of industrial disputes, between the workman and employers. While in some cases, the aggrieved party can directly approach the Industrial tribunal or Labour Court, such as under section 2-A (2) of the Act, as regards the other matters, a reference has to be made by the appropriate Government, to the Tribunal or court. Since the grievance of the petitioner did not fit into Section 2-A (2) of the Act, he invoked the machinery under Section 10 of the Act.