Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
T. Raj Kumar, Guntur Dist. vs The Honble Labour Court, Another on 24 January, 2025
APHC010378612007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3504]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOUR OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 4265/2007
Between:
T. Raj Kumar, Guntur Dist. ...PETITIONER
AND
The Hon'ble Labour Court Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A VEERASEKHAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR
2. SANISETTY VENKATESWARULU (SC FOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following ORDER:
This instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the
petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following
main prayer:-
“……to issue writ order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and after calling for the
records in I.D.No.26/2000, dt. 11.02.2005 on the file of the
Hon’ble 1st respondent, in not granting any relief to the
2petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently
quash the same by granting increments and arrears to the
petitioner and pass such other orders….”
2. In the present writ petition, the Award dated 11.02.2005 made in
I.D No.26 of 2000 is called into question, wherein, the 1st respondent-
Labour Court, Guntur., with reference to Section 10-1(c) of Industrial
Disputes Act 1947, confirmed the penalty imposed by the 2nd respondent
in withholding the annual increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect
without conducting an enquiry.
Brief case of the petitioner:-
3. The petitioner upon joining the service as Conductor in the
respondent Corporation in the year 1976, was promoted to Junior
Assistant on 18.01.1992. When the petitioner was discharging his duties
in the year 1986, charges were framed against him regarding Cash &
Ticket irregularities, and Charge Sheet dated 24.02.1986 was issued.
4. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that, without conducting an
enquiry, the 2nd respondent had passed a final order dated 20.05.1986,
whereby petitioner’s annual increment which falls next due be withheld for
a period of six months, having the effect of postponing future increments.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the punishment order dated
20.05.1986, before the appellate authority, and the same was rejected as
Time barred. At last, finally the case landed in the 1st respondent-Labour
3
Court under Section 10-1(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where
the punishment against the petitioner was confirmed.
Brief case of the Respondent-Corporation:-
6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation, it is
stated that the record was destroyed as case relates to old one and that
the petitioner’s appeal before the appellate authority was rejected as it
was time-barred and further contended that the 1st respondent-Labour
Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record has confirmed
the punishment inflicted against the petitioner. Thus, aggrieved by the
award dated 11.02.2005 made in I.D No.26 of 2000, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.
7. Heard Sri Y. Subba Rao, representing the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent Corporation as well as learned Government Pleader.
Consideration of this Court:
8. Perused the material on record.
9. The moot question emanated in the instant writ petition is whether
stoppage of increment with cumulative effect without conducting an
enquiry against the petitioner is legally sustainable or not ?
4
10. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Conductor in the 2nd respondent
corporation. Therefore, the petitioner is governed by the service, conduct
and CC&A conditions, as envisaged under the APSRTC Regulations i.e.
APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, APSRTC Employees
(Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and APSRTC Employees (CC&A)
Regulations, 1967. Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) reads
as under :-
“Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations
specifies the various penalties that may be imposed upon an
employee by the disciplinary authority. Regulations 12 (2) of
the said Regulations further provides that no order imposing
on an employee any of the penalties specified in terms (VII).
(VIII) and (X) of clause (1) of Regulation 8 shall be passed
except after an enquiry is held in the manner prescribed
under the Regulations. Thus, according to CC&A
Regulations major penalties can be imposed only after
conducting an enquiry as provided under the Regulations.”
11. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the well settled legal
principle, held in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab1, where the
prime question before the Apex Court was whether the imposing of the
Major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect
without an enquiry is legal or not?
12. The Apex Court after perceiving the relevant provisions and also
examining Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)
1
1991 Supp (1) SCC
5
Rules, 1970 categorically held that the penalty of withholding increments
with cumulative effect is a major penalty as the employment is reduced in
his time scale.
13. In fact, the very 2nd respondent-Corporation’s Managing Director &
Vice Chairman, he himself after noting the three Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Kulwant Singh Gill‘s case issued circular
No.Lo.1/99 dated 19.02.1999, whereby and whereunder, referring Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (CC & A)
Regulations, it was stated that major penalties can be imposed only after
conducting an enquiry only. For the sake of comprehensive view, the
relevant paras in Circular dated 19.02.1999 reads as under:-
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant
Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab. 1990 (1). LLJ. Page 1635
cumulative effect would amount to a major penalty and the
same cannot to imposed unless an enquiry is conducted and
the employee is held guilty of the misconduct. Based on the
said decision of the Supreme Court, Several employees who
are imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increments
with cumulative effect are approaching the High Court and
Labour Court for setting aside the said punishment on the
ground that no enquiry is conducted before imposing the said
major penalty. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court,
the High Court and Labour Court as are allowing the said claims
and directing repayment of the incremental arrears withheld.
These claims are causing serious financial problems involving
repayment of the money recovered.
6
In view of the decision of the Supreme Court. It is
necessary to conducting enquiry into the charges leveled
against an employees are serious in nature and may result in
imposing of punishment of with holding increment with
cumulative effect. All the disciplinary authorities are hereby
instructed not to impose the punishment of with holding the
increment with cumulative effect until an enquiry as
contemplated under the CC&A Regulations is conducted and
the charges leveled against the employees are proved in the
said enquiry.”
14. A plain reading of the Circular dated 19.02.1999 shows that the
very same 2nd Respondent’s Managing Director directed the Corporation
authorities to follow the circular scrupulously without any infraction.
15. The Apex Court in its later judgment in Punjab State Electricity
Board Vs. Raj Kumar Goel 2 , firmly reiterated that the punishment of
stoppage of increment with cumulative effect imposed, is a major
punishment. The relevant para of same is extracted hereunder for the
sake of comprehensive view:-
“9. At the very outset, we may clearly state that there is no
discord or dispute over the exposition of facts. The controversy has
arisen with regard to implementation of the order of punishment
imposed by the authority on the delinquent employee. The courts
below have opined that though it is mentioned in the order of
punishment that there is stoppage of five increments without
cumulative effect which is a minor punishment yet the manner of
implementation converts it to a major punishment. There can be no
cavil over the proposition that when a punishment of stoppage of an2
(2014) 15 SCC 748
7increment with cumulative effect is imposed, it is a major punishment.
In this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in Kulwant
Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [Kulwant Singh Gill V. State of Punjab,
1991 Supp (1) SCC 504: 1991 SCC (L&S) 998 : (1991) 16 ATC 940]
wherein it has been held that withholding of increments of pay
simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly would be a minor
punishment but withholding of increments with cumulative effect, the
consequences being quite hazardous to the employee, it would come
in the compartment of major punishment. Proceeding further the two-
Judge Bench stated thus: (SCC pp. 507-08, para 4)
“4. … But when penalty was imposed withholding
two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it
would indisputably mean that the two increments earned
by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty
forever in his upward march of earning higher scale of
pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage
in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the
clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious
effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is
that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale
by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the
tenure of his service with a direction that two years’
increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay
as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the
language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant
effects would become apparent.” After so observing, the
Court treated the said punishment to be a major penalty.
In said case while interpreting clause (v) of Rule 5 of the
same Regulations, the Court did not accept the reasoning
of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sarwan Singh v. State
of Punjab [Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, ILR (1985) 2
P&H 193].”
8
16. Further, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in R.D Pachoriya Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh 3 has followed the above well-settled legal
principle coined by the Apex Court way back in the year 1991.
17. Reverting to the case on hand, it is apparent that the respondent-
Corporation has failed to demonstrate that they had conducted an
enquiry, before imposing the major punishment on the petitioner. The said
action is per se hit by the Dictum held in Kulwant Singh Gill way back in
the year 1990 itself.
18. In nutshell, the punishment imposed by the respondent-
Corporation, which was mechanically affirmed by the appellate authority
as well as the 1st respondent-Labour Court, is liable to be interdicted as it
is a fundamental breach of procedure established under the Law i.e.,
imposing the major penalty, without conducting an enquiry is highly anti-
thesis to the essential jurisprudential principles of Law.
19. Before parting with this case, it is pertinent to mention that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill case, through three-Judge
Bench, settled the Law in its unequivocal words. Furthermore, the 2nd
respondent Corporation itself issued the Circular dated 19.02.1999,
reiterating the principles established in the Kulwant Singh Gill case and
directing all authorities to follow the Circular scrupulously without
3
2022 SCC Online MP 5841
9
deviation. Despite the same, similar cases continue to arise, more
particularly, from the 2nd respondent. As one of the instrumentalities of the
State, which has merged with the State Government, the 2nd Respondent
should be more active demonstrate greater diligence and serve as a role
model for others.
20. In Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India4, the Apex Court way
back in the year 1980 through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, observed as
under:-
“70. Social justice is the conscience of our Constitution,
the State is the promoter of economic justice, the founding faith
which sustains the Constitution and the country is Indian
humanity. The public sector is a model employer with a social
conscience not an artificial person without soul to be damned or
body to be burnt.”
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated in the case of State
of Jharkhand Vs. Harihar Yadav5 regarding the concept of social justice
and also how the State should stand as a Role Model in its vivid terms.
22. However, it is regrettable that the 2nd Respondent Corporation
continues to adopt a mechanical approach, awaiting repetitive approval
from the Constitutional Courts, even in cases like the present lis. This is
one of the reason for the pendency of cases before the Hon’ble Courts
and Forums, etc.
4
(1981) 1 SCC 449
5
(2014) 2 SCC 114
10
23. It is apt to state that in view of the unequivocal law settled in
Kulwant Singh Gill‘s Case by the Apex Court, the said precedent is
followed and applied unanimously by the High Courts across the nation,
including a recent case where the 2nd Respondent Corporation itself
involving in W.P No.20551/2006, Regional Manager, APSRTC Kadapa
Vs. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur & Anr. In fact, the
2nd respondent issued circular dt:19.02.1999 as stated supra mandating
the purport of dictum held in Kulwant Singh Gill. Despite such explicit
circular, there is a serious non-adherence to the essence of the same.
24. This court has observed that, so many employees from poor
backgrounds are approaching the Industrial Tribunals, High Court to
follow the ratio held in Kulwant Singh Gill, which also contributes to the
unwarranted pendency of the cases and exacerbates the already
pressing issue of case backlog in various courts.
25. It is trite to note that, the petitioner is from a rural and poor
background, where there is lack of basic infrastructural facilities and he
has been forced by the circumstances to continue litigation for his
legitimate cause from the year 1986 to 2025 (approximately 39 years)
leading to multifarious problems i.e., physically, psychologically and
fiscally, which directly affects his Right to Life as enunciated in the Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
11
26. At this juncture, I venture to request all the stakeholders in the
Justice Delivery System, more particularly, the State and its
instrumentalities to introspect their Internal Administrative wings by
applying well-established authoritative legal principles by the
Constitutional Courts. It is advisable to identify the empty formality cases
where the issues are squarely covered by Judicial parameters, more
particularly, in Labour related matters, where cause no longer survives,
and in other areas that could be mediated with other Public Departments,
to initiate appropriate steps to reach its logical end in a pragmatic way.
27. For the foregoing conclusion, the writ petition is allowed setting
aside the impugned Award dated 11.02.2005 made in I.D No.26 of 2000.
Consequentially, the respondent-Corporation shall disburse the service
benefits of the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order.
No costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Date: 24.01.2025
GVK
12
33
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.4265 of 2007
Date: 24.01.2025
GVK
[ad_1]
Source link