IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9179 of 1999 Between: The Chairman, Visakapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court rep. by its Presiding Officer. Visakhapatnam. 2 The General Secretary, Port and Dock Employees’ Association, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the 1st respondent in I.D.No.19/95 and quash the award passed in I.D.No.19/95 dt.10/7/1998 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. G. VIDYA SAGAR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9179 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award, dated 10.7.1998, made in I.D.No.19 of 1995 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is the management and 2nd respondent is the Port and Dock Employees’ Association. It appears, when the management imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect on two workmen without conducting any enquiry on the ground that the punishment imposed was minor and as such no enquiry needs to be conducted, the 2nd respondent raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer alleging that management cannot impose the said punishment without conducting detailed enquiry into the allegations levelled against the workmen. On failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Government and the Government, in turn, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam for adjudication of the following issue: “Whether the action of management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust in awarding punishment on Sri R. Krishna Murthy, Working President and Sri S. Rahaman, General Secretary, without holding enquiry on the ground that punishment awarded is minor which does not need enquiry is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned entitled to?” It was the case of the management that it need not have to necessarily hold enquiry in every case and it has absolute discretion to hold enquiry or not in all situations. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that wherever discretion is conferred by a statute upon a public authority- whether it is administrative or quasi judicial or judicial, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. In other words, in the realm of rule of law, there is no question of any authority exercising arbitrary discretion especially when such discretion is likely to entail in or as, in fact, entailed in evil consequences to the person against whom the discretion is exercised. It was further held that the two workmen came to be punished without any enquiry though they denied the allegations levelled against them and that the management was not justified in awarding even a minor punishment to the workmen without conducting any enquiry. Accordingly, an award was passed setting aside the punishment imposed on the two workmen. I am not in agreement with the findings of the Labour Court. It is a settled proposition of law that for the purpose of imposing a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, there is no necessity of conducting a detailed enquiry into the allegations levelled against the workman, even if they are disputed by him. It is sufficient if the workman is put on notice and his explanation is called for. If the explanation of the workman is not satisfactory and the management deems it fit to impose a minor punishment, it can do so. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has committed error in holding that the management is not justified in awarding minor punishment to the workmen without conducting enquiry on the ground that the punishment awarded is minor and it needs no enquiry to be conducted. Thus, the impugned award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th March, 2008. IBL To 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam. 2 The General Secretary, Port and Dock Employees’ Association, Visakhapatnam. 3 Two CD Copies