IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 705 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/04/2008 in WP NO : 24635 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Nizamabad-II Depot Nizamabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad 3 The Labour Court-II, rep.by its Presiding officer Chandravihar building, 4th floor, Nampally,Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 T.V.Swamy S/o.Late Narasimhloo R/o.& Post Kowlas,Jukal Mandal Nizamabad District-503305 2 The Labour Court-II, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 4th Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD WRIT APPEAL NO : 647 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/04/2008 in WP NO : 24635 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: T.V.Swamy S/o.Late Narasimhloo R/o.& Post Kowlas,Jukal Mandal Nizamabad District-503305 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Nizamabad II Depot Nizamabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad 3 The Labour Court-II, rep.by its Presiding officer Chandravihar building, 4th floor, Nampally,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in W.P.No. 24635 of 2007, dated 17-4-2008, these two appeals have been filed. W.A.No.705 of 2008 has been filed by the employer whereas W.A.No. 647 of 2008 has been filed by the workman-driver. Facts giving rise to the aforestated writ petition, in nutshell, are as under: For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.A.No. 705 of 2008. The respondent was working as a driver in the appellant- Corporation. On 17-1-2003 while the respondent was driving his vehicle from Karimnagar to Nizamabad, an accident took place which resulted in to death of three persons. A charge sheet was issued and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. By an order dated 2-9-2003, the respondent-driver was removed from service. Against the order of removal, an appeal had been filed and thereafter a review application had also been filed. The appeal as well as the review application had been dismissed and thereafter the respondent-driver had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Ultimately an award dated 14-6-2007 was made, whereby the order of removal was confirmed by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent-driver had approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 24635 of 2007. After hearing the learned Advocate, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the petition by remanding the matter to the Labour Court so as to consider the quantum of punishment afresh. The learned Single Judge had remanded the matter in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.V.Ramulu v. Labour Court, Hyderabad[1]. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Labour Court did not consider the matter independently under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act and, therefore, while setting aside the award, the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Labour Court to re-examine the matter in the light of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. We have heard the learned Advocates. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-Corporation has submitted that in fact, impliedly the Labour Court had examined the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act and as the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment inflicted upon the workman-driver was just and proper, the order of removal was confirmed by the Labour Court. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the workman has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. He has also relied upon three judgments, namely, C.V.Ramulu v. Labour Court, Hyderabad (1 supra), Jagtamba Devi v. Hem Ram[2] and Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. V. Santosh Kumar[3]. Learned Advocate for the workman has submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court, the order of remand is just and proper, and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Corporation deserves to be dismissed. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also considered the judgments cited by the learned Advocate appearing for the workman. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were valid. Even the learned Advocate appearing for the workman has not alleged anything against the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, so far as the enquiry proceedings are concerned, it is not in dispute that they are not vitiated and they have been held valid. The question is only with regard to the quantum of punishment. We have to see whether the quantum of punishment is just and whether the Labour Court had considered the proportionality of punishment inflicted upon the workman after considering the charges proved against him. It is an admitted fact that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the workman-driver and as a result thereof three persons died. In the light of the aforestated facts, the Labour Court made the following observation in the award: “Though the petitioner contended that there is no negligence on his part, it is proved in the domestic enquiry due to the negligence of the petitioner only the accident had occurred. Three persons left this world. There appears to be no reasons to interfere with the decision of the respondent.” According to us, the aforestated observation made by the Labour Court denotes that the Labour Court had considered the question with regard to quantum of punishment to be inflicted upon the workman. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the punishment inflicted upon the workman was just and proper. Learned Advocate appearing for the workman has argued that the Labour Court did not consider the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, because there is no elaborate discussion on the subject. We are not in agreement with the aforestated submission made by the learned Advocate for the reason that in our opinion the Labour Court had briefly summed up the entire issue by observing that the punishment inflicted upon the workman is just and proper. In our opinion, it was not necessary for the Labour Court to elaborately discuss the issue in several paragraphs or pages so as to say that the punishment inflicted was just and proper. In our opinion, in the four lines, which are referred to hereinabove, the Labour Court has precisely stated that the punishment inflicted upon the workman was just and proper and it did not require any change. So far as the judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the workman are concerned, we are of the view that the said judgments would not help the workman. In so far as the contents in para 8 of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in C.V.Ramulu (1 supra), it was observed that the Tribunal is under the duty to consider as to whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges established or not. In our opinion, the Tribunal had considered the above fact. The Tribunal had clearly observed that due to the negligence of the workman-driver, the accident had occurred and three persons had died and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the punishment imposed upon the workman. The aforestated observation made by the Labour Court denotes that the question with regard to the proportionality of the punishment had been duly considered. Therefore, in our opinion, the aforestated judgment shall be of no help to the workman. So far as the judgment delivered in the case of Jagtamba Devi (2 supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court should give reasons when a petition or appeal is dismissed. The relevant portion of para 6 of the said judgment reads as under: “The order of the High Court reads as follows: “Heard. Dismissed.” It is absolutely non-reasoned. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment unsustainable.” The above judgment lays down the law that whenever any decision is rendered by the Court, the decision should be supported by reasons. In our opinion, the Tribunal had given reasons for coming to the conclusion that the punishment imposed upon the workman was just and proper. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the aforestated judgment would be of no help to the workman, because, in the instant case, it cannot be said that no reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal. So far as the judgment in the case of Director (Marketing) IOC Ltd (3 supra) is concerned, learned Advocate appearing for the workman has drawn our attention to para 10 of the said judgment. Para 10 of the said judgment reproduces some of the observations made by the appellate authority. Upon perusal of the operative portions of different orders reproduced in para 10, it is clear that no independent reason had been recorded by any of the authorities. Each authority had said that it was satisfied with the order of dismissal. The Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, observed that the orders of the appellate authority suffered from non-application of mind. In the instant case, the position is different. The Labour Court had taken into account all the relevant factors and has given the reasons and ultimately agreed with the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the workman. Therefore, in our opinion, the said judgment is also not helpful to the workman. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case the workman would have retired from service on 31-7-2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. In such a case, he cannot be taken into employment at this stage. This is an additional factor which goes against the workman in view of efflux of time. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, remanding the matter to the Labour Court, is not proper and therefore, we quash and set aside the said judgment. W.A.No. 705 of 2008: The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. W.A.No. 647 of 2008: The appeal would not survive in view of the fact that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The appeal stands disposed of. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 15th July, 2008. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR [1] . 1984 (2) APLJ 98 [2] . 2008 (4) SCJ 81 [3] . (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 388