Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Mahipal Reddy vs Secretary, Government Of Andhra ... on 19 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD363, 2000(1)ALT637
ORDER
1. Rule nisi. Smt.Nanda Ramachander Rao took notice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard finally and disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioner currently is serving as Conductor in the APSRTC. Disciplinary Proceedings are initiated against the petitioner and the charge-sheet was issued to him on 19-5-1999. On the same day, a separate order (suspension order) was issued placing the petitioner under suspension pending departmental enquiry. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the charge-sheet dated 19-5-1999 and the suspension order dated 19-5-1999.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the validity of the charge-sheet as well as the suspension order would contend that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (CC&A) Conduct Regulations as well as the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (CC&A) Regulations are not yet published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and therefore those regulations have not yet come into force and therefore disciplinary proceedings initiated by the authorities of the APSRTC under those regulations as well as the suspension order issued by the disciplinary authority are without authority of law.
4. Secondly, the petitioner's Counsel would contend that the petitioner, being a conductor, is a 'workman' within the meaning of that term as defined tinder Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Corporation has not yet framed separate Service Regulations governing workmen in the Industry as contemplated under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, and therefore, the general regulations contained in the APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations and the APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations cannot be made applicable to the petilioner who is a workman.
5. In support of the first contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the provisions of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short 'the Act') and maintains that the several steps comtemplated in sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act are required to be adhered to by the APSRTC Management before it frames the Regulations as a donee of the power under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, and in the instant case the APSRTC did not go through the steps contemplated under sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 23 of the Act.
6. The first contention of the learned Counsel has to be noted only to be rejected in limine. The relevant part of Section 23 reads thus :
"Whereby, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power to make rules or bye laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition (emphasis is applied by the Court) of the Rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following provisions shall apply, namely :
(1) the authority having power to make rules or bye-laws shall before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby;
(2) the publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires, in such manner as the government concerned prescribes;
(3) they shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration;
(4) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws, and, where the rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or concurrence of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified;
(5) the publication in the Official Gazette or a rule or bye-law purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made".
7. The question to be considered is whether the power granted to the APSRTC under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 is subject to the condition that the APSRTC would make Regulations only after previous publication. A straight answer to the question is an emphatic 'no'. Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act does not subject the power of the donee, i.e., the APSRTC administration, to make regulations subject to previous publication. Therefore, the whole plank of the argument of the learned Counsel is misconceived, and therefore, it should fail.
8. Adverting to the second contention, at the threshold, it is relevant to note that every workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is undoubtedly an employee though every employee need not be a 'workman' within the meaning of that term as defined under Section 2(s).
9. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct) Regulations as well as the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (CC&A) Regulations empower the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against all its employees, that is to say that the employees who answer the definition of 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and other employees who may not answer the said definition. The power to make Regulations in such service matters including disciplinary actions is granted to the management of the APSRTC by the enactment of the Parliament i.e., the Road Transport Corporation Act, under Section 45. The constitutional validity of Section 45 of the said Act is not assailed before me.
10. Therefore, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in framing Regulations i.e.. the APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct) Regulations, has exceeded the power granted to it under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It is not the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Regulations i.e., the APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations and the APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, being delegated legislations, suffer from vice of excessive delegation or constitutional or statutory infirmities. The APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations and the APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations are the Statutory Regulations. When the terms and conditions of the employees including those employees who answer the definition of the term 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are governed by the Statue, the framing of the Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, or in the absence of the Standing Orders, application of the procedure contemplated under the said Act as regards disciplinary proceedings against the workmen of the APSRTC are unnecessary. Alternatively, it may be noted that the Management of the APSRTC cannot frame the Standing Orders contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations and the APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations. I am fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.S.Giri v. Corporation of City of Mangalore, , in taking this view. In that case, the Apex Court, held that an award made under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be given effect to if it be inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing the Service Conditions of the employees.
11. No other points are urged before the Court touching the merits of the matter. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.