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 2 petitioner 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 an 2 (2014) 15 SCC 748 7 increment 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