DISTRICT MANAGER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION NIZAMABAD BUS DEPOT Vs. LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, for quashing the order of the Labour Court in M. P. No 141 of 1976 by which it allowed a petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein under section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The 2nd respondant was a conductor. On 16th September, 1972, he was deputed to work as a conductor on route Nizamabad to Hyderabad. He did not report for duty on 17th August, 1972 on the return journey. He was arrested on 10th September, 1972 upon a complaint of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation that he was forging the tickets issued to the passengers and cheating the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which are offences punishable under sections 467, 472, 474, 475 and 420, Indian Penal Code. He was kept under detention for more than 48 hours. As a consequence of his detention for more than 48 hours under Regulation 18 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation employees C.C.C.A. Regulations, he was deemed to have been suspended from service. During this period of suspension he was not paid either subsistence allowance or any portion of his pay. He was subsequently prosecuted for the said offences but was acquitted by the judgment dated 27th April, 1974. On 29th April, 1974, he wrote a letter to the District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation informing him that he was acquitted of the charges and requesting that he may be given a posting. He also reported to duty later but he was neither given a posting nor paid the salary. After sending several reminders he filed an application on 19th March, 1976 before the Labour Court under section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming arrears of pay and allowances due to him as a conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. In that petition he claimed that the pay scales of the conductors were revised during the period he was under suspension and he was entitled to pay and allowances as per the revised pay scales. That petition was opposed inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was only an "apprentice conductor" and not a regular conductor and as such he was not entitled to any revised pay scales. A more fundamental objection was also taken that until an order of reinstatement made, the petitioner, who was detained for more than 48 hours would be deemed to continue under suspension and as such he was not entitled to claim any pay or allowances or even subsistence allowance for the said period in view of Regulation 20 (3) (c) read with Regulation 18 (2). The Labour Court, by the order now impugned, held that the petitioner was entitled to be placed in the same position in which he would have been but for his arrest and prosecution on complaint given by the respondent and that status quo ante should be restored once the charges levelled against him are held to have been not proved. On the evidence the Labour Court found that the petitioner was a regular conductor whose basic pay was Rs 80 per month plus usual allowances. However, having regard to the concession made on behalf of the petitioner, the arrears of pay and allowances were awarded as per the scale of pay that obtained prior to the revision of pay scales.

(3.) In this writ petition Mr. Ananda Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that when admittedly the petitioner was detained for more than 48 hours, he would be deemed to be under suspension and until an order of reinstatement is made consequent upon his acquittal, he would not be entitled to receive any subsistence allowance much less any amount by way of salary. At this stage it may be noti.ed that as stated by the 2nd respondent in his counter, though he did not report to duty on 17th August, 1972 he reported to duty on 18th August, 1972 and submitted an application to the effect that he was sick on 17th August, 1972. He was not placed under suspension nor arrested till 10th September, 1972. The arrest and the detention of the petitioner on 10th September, 1972 in pursuant to a complaint made by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation that the respondent had forged the tickets and cheated the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The arrest and detention on criminal charges were thus connected with his duties as an employee.