Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Amalapuram ... vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour ... on 29 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)ALD469, 2000(4)ALT378
ORDER
1. The respondents 2 to 6 are drivers of APSRTC (hereinafter called the Management). They, were initially removed for misconduct on 17-3-1988. However, the reviewing authority modified the punishment to that of deferring the annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect treating the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement as 'not on duty'. Aggrieved by this, the respondents raised industrial dispute. Ultimately, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.
2. The Management resisted the claim of the respondents only on the ground that the punishment imposed is just and proper. However, the Management did not produce the record of domestic enquiry in support of the claim that the enquiry is conducted properly, or in support of the punishment imposed by the reviewing authority. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal drew an adverse inference and passed award setting aside the punishment imposed on the respondents. The said award was passed on 24-2-1999 and the same was published vide G.O. Rt. No.700, dated 22-4-1999. After lapse of one year and more, the RTC, preferred this writ petition.
3. Mr Y. Vivekcmanda Swamy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Management, submits that the observation of the Industrial Tribunal that the record of domestic enquiry is not produced is not correct and that the Management has produced the record. In support of this, in the affidavit, they rely on an endorsement made by the Standing Counsel of RTC, Visakhapatnam, in the case file on 27-3-2000.
4. Here, it is better to record the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, verbatim'.
"Though the record is filed, the Industrial Tribunal 'dishonestly' passed the award drawing an adverse inference erroneously."
5. The Industrial Tribunal is arrayed as respondent No.l. It is well settled that when proceedings for certitorari are initiated against the orders of a Tribunal, the Tribunal is only a formal party and it is not expected that the Tribunal, which passed the impugned order, to appear before this Court and support the finding or the reasons for the finding Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radha Krishnan, . Be that as it may, the affidavit is silent as to the ground now urged by the Management's Counsel before me. Therefore, firstly, the submission is baseless besides being offending. However 'worked-up' a client may be, aggrieved by a decision challenged before the High Court in proceedings under Article 226, the use of intemperate language, as is used in this case by the learned Standing Counsel, is highly deplorable. Indeed, it is a serious misconduct, which has to be set right at the initial stage. It shall be made clear that submissions are not duly supported by pleadings. Such submissions attributing motives to the Tribunal without proper foundation would not advance the case of the Management any further. Realising this, the learned Standing Counsel was good enough to express his regrets in the open Court. Therefore, no further action against the Standing Counsel is called for.
6. It should, however, be held that even when bad motive or malice, in fact, is attributed to the decision-maker, there should be proper material and the person who made the decision should be made a party. Even while making oral submissions of mala fides, proper legal language should only be used in the Courts. Any militant submissions should be viewed by the Courts very seriously.
7. Coming to the submission made by the Standing Counsel on merits of the case that as per the endorsement made by the Standing Counsel of the RTC, Visakhapatnam, the record if domestic enquiry was, in fact, filed and, therefore, the observations are erroneous. It should be held that the proceedings of the Courts and the Tribunal are treated as final unless they are properly corrected or modified by the Court or the Tribunal itself. The award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal about a year ago, and the Management had ample opportunity to seek clarification on the alleged inadvertency that crept into the award. That was not done. Even in approaching this Court, there is a lot of delay. Therefore, it should be held that the adverse inference drawn by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be held to be unjustified.
8. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. A copy of this order shall be issued to respondents 2 to 6, who shall be entitled to execute the decree under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.