Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nizamaba Dist vs K. Jayaram, Nizamabad Ano

The present writ appeals are arising out of common order dated 22.06.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.3923 and 17235 of 2005 by the learned Single Judge.

W.P.No.3923 of 2005 has been filed by the workman and W.P.No.17235 of 2005 has been filed by the employer/APSRTC.

The facts of the case reveal that the workman in question was serving as a Driver in the services of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and his wife committed suicide. A case was registered for the offence under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the workman and the same ended in acquittal. The workman was arrested by the police, Banswada, on 13.07.2000 and was released on 20.07.2000. However, he was charge sheeted for not informing the employer about his arrest and therefore, violating Regulation 26 of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

A detailed and exhaustive enquiry took place in the matter and the enquiry officer held the workman guilty of the misconduct and in those circumstances, a punishment of removal from service was imposed upon him by an order dated 24.01.2001. The workman thereafter took shelter of the Labour Court and the Labour Court finally passed an award in I.D.No.25 of 2003 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service along with 50% of the back wages and attendant benefits as well as a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was inflicted upon him. The workman came up before this Court by filing a writ petition being aggrieved by the award dated 25.09.2004 passed by the Labour Court and the employer also came up before this Court being aggrieved by the reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court.

The facts of the case reveal that the workman did not inform his arrest to the employer and the Labour Court, however, holding that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman, by exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has interfered with the quantum of punishment. The learned Single Judge has further interfered with the quantum of punishment and directed payment of full back wages. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:

"The said Regulation itself does not support the contention of the management that once it is a misconduct, the management has all the power to remove the workman from service. Regulation 26 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 reads as under:

"An employee who may be arrested for any reason shall intimate the fact of his arrest as soon as possible thereafter to his immediate superior officer even though he might subsequently have been released on bail. Failure to do so render the employee liable for disciplinary action on that ground alone apart from any action that may be taken against him on the basis of the result of the criminal proceedings launched against him".

The first part of the above regulation itself would indicate that the management is at liberty to construe the nonintimation of the fact of arrest by a delinquent as a misconduct and punish him suitably. But, the later part of the regulation would indicate that a major penalty of removal from service etc. can be imposed only in case of conviction of the delinquent by a competent criminal Court and not otherwise. Further, no prudent management would impose such an ultimate punishment of removal from service of its employee simply because he had not intimated about his arrest in a criminal case. This is not so a grave misconduct requiring removal of the petitioner from service, even if it is proved. Only in a case where the delinquent has been convicted, a major penalty as contemplated under the Regulations can be imposed apart from the punishment suffered by the delinquent for the misconduct of not intimating about his arrest in criminal case. Therefore, imposing of major punishment of removal from service is without authority of law and the removal order passed by the management is liable to be set aside. The Labour Court rightly did so, but while directing reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, granted only 50% of the backwages, even though the disciplinary authority cannot exercise the power of removal of the workman from service, for such a minor misconduct. However, the petitioner cannot escape for the proved misconduct of not intimating about his arrest in a criminal case. It appears, he was paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Therefore, denying the remaining wages from the date of suspension till the date of removal i.e. from 4.9.2000 till 24.1.2001 would be suffice. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court is required to be modified as under:

"The respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman with continuity of service and full backwages and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner is entitled for the subsistence allowance which he was already paid. However, it is made clear that the workman is not entitled for the full wages from the date of suspension till the date of removal i.e. from 4.9.2000 till 24.1.2001. Further, the management shall impose the punishment of deferment of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect".

For the reasons furnished above, W.P. No. 3923 of 2006 filed by the workman is allowed in part and W.P. No. 17235 of 2005 filed by the management is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs."

This Court has carefully gone through the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The factum of non-disclosure of arrest was established in the departmental enquiry and even before the Labour Court and the Labour Court having power to modify the punishment, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has rightly interfered with the award, as the punishment was disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent. It was not a case of misappropriation nor was it a case of committing some grave misconduct. As the workman was in jail and was involved in a criminal case, he has not informed the employer in time about his arrest though a statement was made in the departmental enquiry that he has informed the employer orally.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge in a mechanical manner has further granted back wages to the workman. The workman has also attained the age of superannuation and there was an interim order staying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent full back wages have been granted. In the considered opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be sub-served, keeping in view the fact that the workman has already retired, by upholding the order passed by the Labour Court by which reinstatement was ordered and he was granted 50% of the back wages.

Resultantly, both the writ appeals stand disposed of and the award passed by the Labour Court is upheld.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.