Telangana High Court
M. Pochaiah vs The Labour Court Ii, Another on 25 January, 2022
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.24110 OF 2003
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.59 of 1998 in so far as denying the back wages and deferring 3 annual increments after reinstatement as bad in law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the back wages along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation as a driver on 27.03.1985 and his services were regularised in the year 1985 itself. On 03.02.1996, the petitioner was removed from service on the charges that the petitioner absented from duties from 06.09.1995 to 14.09.1995 without any permission or sanction of leave and that the petitioner was not available for duties for about 114 days in the year 1995, (46 days on the ground of sickness; 8 days on granted leave; and 60 days unauthorisiedly). Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner raised I.D.No.59 of 1998 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and however, the Labour Court modified the punishment by directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back wages and also directing stoppage of 3 annual W.P.No.24110 of 2003 2 increments after reinstatement. Challenging the award, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, submitted that denial of back wages for out of service period itself is a punishment and therefore further denial of 3 annual increments along with consequential benefits would amount to double punishment. According to him, the 2nd respondent had not allowed the back wages for the period of removal, i.e., from 03.02.1996 to June, 2001 during which period, he was eligible for increments and further denied 3 annual increments, i.e., a total of 5 increments were deprived to the petitioner for unauthorised absence of 110 days. He therefore submitted that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges of unauthorised absence. In support of his contention about disproportionality of punishment, he placed reliance upon the following decisions.
(1) T. Chiranjeevi and others Vs. TSRTC and others1 (2) Union of India and others Vs. Giriraj Sharma2
4. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri K. Harinath, supported the removal order.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the only question before this Court is 1 2016 (1) ALD 32 2 1994 Supp(3)SCC755 W.P.No.24110 of 2003 3 about the disproportionality of the punishment. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived of not only back wages but 3 increments with cumulative effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Giriraj Sharma (2 supra), has held that major punishment of removal from service or stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorised absenteeism. Respectfully following the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to hold that the punishment awarded is excessive and needs reconsideration. In such circumstances, the proper course of action would be to remand the matter to the respondent authorities with a direction to reconsider the punishment. However, due to lapse of more than 20 years after the award of the Labour Court, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment to stoppage of two (2) increments without cumulative effect, but without back wages. Continuity of service shall be considered only for the purpose of granting retirement benefits.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 25.01.2022 Svv