The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and CAD Department one Another vs Sri S. Keshava Murthy and one Another

K.G. Shankar, J.—The first respondent was dismissed from service through orders dated 27.9.1996. Questioning the same, the first respondent raised I.D. No. 231 of 1998 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. The second respondent-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court set aside the enquiry and ordered reinstatement of the first respondent into service as a fresh appointee. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Typist in the Irrigation Department. Alleging that he was absconding from duty without leave from 17.7.1995 till 20.10.1995, a charge sheet was issued containing three charges. The first respondent allegedly absconded from duty without leave and without medical certificate. The first respondent received the charge sheet. The first respondent however did not respond to the same and did not offer any explanation. Consequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. The first respondent did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on repeated adjournments. Ultimately on 24.5.1996, the first respondent was informed by the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry would be conducted ex-parte in the event the first respondent does not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent, it seems, did not appear before the Enquiry Officer despite such a direction from the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, enquiry was conducted ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer found the first respondent guilty. The enquiry report was communicated to the first respondent. Again the first respondent did not offer any explanation regarding the enquiry report. Ultimately, on 27.9.1996, the first respondent was dismissed from service. The same was reported in the Official Gazette on 17.10.1996. Questioning the same, the Industrial Dispute was raised by the first respondent. As already pointed out, the second respondent-Tribunal concluded that the first respondent voluntarily evaded enquiry. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considered that the report was not sustainable and consequently, set aside the orders of termination.

The learned Government Pleader primarily contended that the first respondent is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The first respondent was appointed as Typist on compassionate grounds under Rule 10-A of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the first respondent is governed by A.P. (C.C.A.) Rules 1991, and that the first respondent is a Government Servant and is not a workman. He placed reliance in support of his contention on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . It was observed in that case that when the appointments are regulated by statutory rules, the concept of Industry to that extent would stand excluded. He also placed reliance upon Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka) Vs. K. Somasetty and others, where it was observed that the State while discharging a public welfare function cannot be treated as an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, in State of Gujarat Vs. PWD Employees Union : (2002) 10 SCC 147, relying upon Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, , the Supreme Court observed that PWD is an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. In Dhari Gram Panchayat Vs. Saurashtra Mazdoor Mahajan Sangh and Another, , Clerks working in the Octroi Section of the Gram Panchayat were held to be workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) and that Octroi Department of the Panchayat was an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Des Raj and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors, where it was observed that all employees in the Industrial Undertakings, who are not discharging managerial functions, are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. I, therefore, consider that the question whether the petitioners is an industry or not within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the first respondent herein is a workman or otherwise u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is no more res integra. I have no hesitation to agree with the finding of the second respondent-Industrial Tribunal that the first respondent is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. Thus it is evident that the second respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Regarding the quantum of punishment, the first respondent was absent from duty from 17.7.1995 till 20.10.1995 without sanction of leave and without proper medical certificate. Assuming that this contention is true, the award of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. The second respondent deemed it appropriate to order reinstatement of the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate. I consider that the punishment awarded by the Tribunal is quite just and reasonable. I, therefore, see no reasons to interfere with the award. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.