IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8781 of 2008 Between: The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 Syed Amjad Ali S/o. Syed Ahmed Ali D.No. 18/466, Baradhari Street, Opp: I Town Police Station, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the award passed on 31-12-2007 by the Presiding Oﬃcer, Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No. 40/2003 is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice there by set aside the same in the interest of justice and equity to grant such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 8781 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is directed against the award made by the Labour Court in I.D.No.40 of 2003 dated 31.12.2007 where under the claim petition ﬁled by the respondent workman was allowed and the management was directed to treat the dismissal of the respondent as compulsory retirement. 2 Petitioner is the management. Second respondent is the workman. It appears that the second respondent while working as revenue cashier in the oﬃce of the Superintending Engineer A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Nellore was proceeded with departmentally on the allegation that he has temporarily misappropriated certain amounts. Respondent workman stated that he has remitted the entire amount and so question of committing any misappropriation does not arise. However, after conducting a detailed enquiry, he was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent workman raised a dispute under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court Guntur. It was the case of the respondent workman that neither the enquiry was properly conducted nor there was any evidence to establish the charges framed against him and further the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct. The petitioner management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the workman. On behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent workman none was examined. However, Exs.P1. to P6 were marked on behalf of the respondent workman and Ex.M.1 to M.14 were marked on behalf of the petitioner management. 3 After detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Labour Court ﬁrstly found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner management was valid. However, on appreciation of the evidence, it came to the conclusion that though the charges are proved, they are technical in nature and as the respondent workman has remitted the amount even before it could be detected by the oﬃcers, the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to that of the misconduct and directed the petitioner management to treat the dismissal order dated 16.07.1996 as that of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy strenuously contended that this is a case of misappropriation and that the oﬀence committed by the respondent was proved and there was any amount of evidence to show that the respondent was dishonest in dealing with the money of the organization and such oﬀence should not have been taken leniently by the Labour Court and therefore ordering compulsory retirement is arbitrary and illegal. 5 On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent workman vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Labour Court, while exercising its powers, vested under section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has directed to treat the dismissal order as compulsory retirement and that the conduct of the respondent was clean as no such allegations as to his previous conduct have been made out. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 6 I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the observations made by the Labour Court in the award impugned and the material made available on record. 7 Admittedly the enquiry was held to be valid. The Labour Court while considering the conduct of the respondent and taking into consideration that the respondent has already deposited the entire amount said to have been misappropriated even before the charges were framed and as the respondent explained that there was some delay in remitting the amount but there was no misappropriation on his part, and in view of the past clean record of the respondent, passed the award impugned in this Writ Petition directing the petitioner to treat the dismissal order dated 16.07.1996 as that of compulsory retirement. This aspect is not seriously disputed by the petitioner management. 8 Since the Labour Court, in its discretion while exercising the powers vested in it under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has passed the impugned award by furnishing the reasons for passing such an award, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9 In the result the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------- C.V.RAMULU, J. 30.10.2008 kvsn