Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nara Goud vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour ... on 26 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(3)ALT648, (1997)ILLJ643AP
JUDGMENT D. Reddeppa Reddi, J.
1. The appellant joined service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as conductor on January 7, 1976. During the year 1981, he was working in the Bus Depot at Koratia. Karimnagar District. On October 17, 1981, when he was conducting the bus on the route Hyderabad to Metpalli a check took place at Stage No. 1 i.e., Metpalli around 6.00 p.m. During the said check certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected by the inspecting staff. On their report the following charges were framed against him.
"1. For having violated the rule issue and start.
2. For having failed to issue tickets to 28 individual passengers who boarded the bus at Koratia Stage No. 2 and were found alighting at Metpalli stage No. 1 in spite of having collected the requisite fare from at their boarding point itself which constitutes misconduct as per Clause VI (a) of Reg.29 of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.
3. For having closed the tray numbers of all denominations upto Stage No. 1 without completing the above ticket issues."
2. There was a departmental enquiry into the said charges, in which he was found guilty. Consequently, he was removed from service with effect from May 24, 1982. His appeal to the Divisional Manager, Karimnagar was also rejected on October 20, 1982. Then on a dispute raised by him. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal for adjudication. The Dispute was registered as I.D. No. 78/86. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. However, Ex. W-1 was marked on behalf of the appellant and Exs.M.1 to M.17 were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent-employer. There was a preliminary enquiry as to the validity of the domestic enquiry which was found to be valid by order dated April 29, 1987. Then, the matter was heard on merits. On consideration of Ex. W-1 and Exs.M.1 to M.16, it was held that all the charges were proved. On perusal of Ex.M.17, the service record of the appellant. It was found that in the past there were number of punishments to his credit. For these reasons, the Labour Court affirmed the order of removal by its Award dated June 8, 1987, which was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on October 12, 1987. Questioning the said award, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 19653 of 1987. It was assailed before the learned single Judge on three grounds :
1. The Labour Court ought not have taken into consideration the past conduct of the appellant recorded in Ext. M-17.
2. The 2nd respondent-employer failed to file counter and as such the case of the appellant as set out in the claim statement should have been accepted.
3. It should have been held that the charges were not established in view of the admission of the inspecting staff that there was a discrepancy with regard to name of stage, where the check took place.
3. The learned Judge rejected these grounds as untenable and dismissed the writ petition by an order dated June 29, 1990. Hence this appeal.
4. The same grounds have been reiterated before us. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the learned Single Judge on the first ground that the Labour Court can take into consideration the past conduct of the delinquent employee is contrary to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, comprising the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, as he then was, in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. K. Jelman Reddy. 1990 (1) An. W.R. 754. True, it has been clearly held in that case that when the domestic enquiry was held to be valid and the past conduct of the delinquent employee was not the subject matter of charge, the Labour Court has no power to take into consideration the past conduct of the delinquent employee under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The same Division Bench reiterated the said view in Writ Appeal No. 1662 of 1989 and batch disposed of on March 19, 1990. Another Division Bench of this Court, comprising Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, as he then was, and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi took the same view in Writ Petition No.11642 of 1987 disposed of on April 3, 1990. In the present case, indisputably there was no charge as to the past conduct of the appellant. As already noted, the domestic enquiry was also held to he valid. Thus, the principle enunciated in the cases referred to supra, the correctness of which we have absolutely no reason to doubt, applies on all fours to the case on hand. In that view of the matter we unhesitatingly hold that the finding Of the learned single Judge that the Labour Court is entitled to take into consideration the previous conduct of the employee is totally unsustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent while fairly conceding the above proposition submits that though it is not permissible for the Labour Court to look into the past conduct of the delinquent employee this Court is entitled to look into the same so as to arrive at a just conclusion in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his submission he places reliance on the following passages in Writ Petition No. 11642 of 1987 dated April 3, 1990, where the facts were almost identical :
"... All that the Labour Court has done is to look into the service record. Service Record is maintained by the employer, in which the particulars of service are mentioned. This is not a case where the Labour Court has looked into or received some evidence which could be related or controverted by the employee by adducing other evidence. The entries made in the service record are authentic, and could not be disputed by the employee ..."
.....
"...... The Labour Court may not have that jurisdiction; but, on the question whether we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226. we are entitled to look into the said record. It would be a negation of Justice to help the petitioner in this case, and that too on the ground that his service record-whose authenticity is beyond dispute-could not have been looked into by the Labour Court on the question of punishment. It is well settled that on proof of a mere irregularity this Court is not bound to interfere under Article 226. Such interference will be made only if it advances the course of Justice; vide Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah , Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A. P. and State of U. P. v. District Judge, Unnad ."
The above proposition leaves no doubt whatsoever that this Court is entitled to look into the past record of service of a delinquent employee for the purpose of granting appropriate relief in a given case. We are in complete agreement with the said proposition. That is what that has been done by the learned single Judge in the present case. Further, to satisfy ourselves we have perused the service record of the appellant and found that there were punishments in the past to his credit, as recorded by the Labour Court.
6. The learned single Judge has given elaborate and cogent reasons for rejecting grounds 2 and 3 On earnest consideration of the matter we see no justifiable ground to disagree with him in any manner on this aspect.
7. The learned single Judge has, rightly too, taken strong exception to the statement made by the appellant in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he had unblemished record of service till he was removed from service. This statement is obviously false, for it is not the case of the appellant that the punishments recorded in his service record were not communicated to him. It is well settled that a person who approaches the Court with a false plea shall not be entitled to any relief.
8. The appellant was found guilty of three charges, the major being that he failed to issue tickets to 28 passengers despite collecting fare from them. The other two charges are also not trivial in nature. It is borne out by his service record that his security deposit was forfeited twice. He was warned thrice, suspended twice and censured once., his increment was deferred once and all these relate to cash and ticket irregularities committed by him.
9. In view of the above, though we are of the view that the Labour Court erred in taking into account the past conduct of the appellant while imposing punishment and the learned single Judge was not correct in holding that the Labour Court is competent to take into consideration the previous conduct of the employee. Yet we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. Therefore, this appeal must fail. It is. accordingly, dismissed. However we make no order as to costs.