T PADMAVATHAMMA W/O LATE T GURAPPA Vs. APSRTC, REP , BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER BANAGANAPALLI DEPOT, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consequent to the death of husband of the petitioner while in service, petitioner was appointed as sweeper on compassionate grounds with effect from 15.5.1993. While working in the said capacity, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her on the allegation that while she was going out after the duty hours, on physical verification of her belongings at the security gate found aluminum scrap pieces weighing ½ Kg in her lunch box and the same amounted to theft of property belonging to respondent corporation. In the domestic enquiry, charge held proved. Based on the same, she was removed from service by order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 11.7.2003, affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. Earlier, petitioner filed W.P.No.24001 of 2005 challenging the order of removal. The said writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to raise Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, industrial dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Anantapur numbered as I.D. No. 75 of 2006. By award dated 18.9.2009, the said dispute was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent corporation.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner did not indulge in theft of aluminum scrap as alleged. After consuming food, she kept her lunch box and bag in guard room and was unattended to. In her absence somebody kept the aluminum scrap in her lunch box without her knowledge, only to harass and victimize the petitioner. He would submit that as she did not indulge in theft of property belonging to the respondent corporation and there is no material on record to show that she kept the aluminum scrap in her lunch box, merely because it was recovered from her by the security guard, is no ground to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge alleged. He would submit that aluminum scrap is useless item and by carrying the same no purpose would be served to the petitioner. Further, the value of the aluminum scrap may at the most be Rs. 100/- and on that ground and for a trivial allegation punishment of removal from service is highly excessive. He submitted that employment was provided on compassionate grounds due to demise of her husband at young age and she was not aware of procedural aspects of employment. On account of punishment imposed, she and her young children are thrown on to the roads. Having regard to peculiar facts of the case, the punishment of removal was highly excessive and disproportionate. He would submit that the Labour Court erred in not appreciating contentions urged by the petitioner and erred in recording a finding of guilt and dismissing the industrial dispute.