IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7366 of 1999 Between: M.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Chittoor-II Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C., Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Anantapur. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Chittoor. 3 The Devisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Chittoor. 4 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Tirupati. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the award of the 1st rerspondent dated 3-1-1995 made in I.D.No.88 of 1992 as illegal, unjust and contrary to law and consequently directing the respondents to award all other attendent benefits including the earlier increments and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: Consequent upon an enquiry being held, and the charges having been established, the petitioner was removed from service. In appeal, the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor while directing that the petitioner be reinstated as a Conductor, placed him in the minimum basic pay of Conductor and posted him at Chittoor Depot. It was ordered that the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement be treated as not on duty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner sought a reference through the APSRTC National Mazdoor Sangh, Chittoor Division and, at the behest of the Union, the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.1146, dated 25-06-1992, referred the dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would take this Court through the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court to contend that the Labour Court had failed to reappreciate the evidence on record and record a finding whether the charges levelled against the petitioner-workman were established or not for it is only if the charges are held established by the Labour Court, would the question of examining the proportionality of punishment arise. Learned counsel would contend that, even if the charges are held established, the Labour Court ought to have examined whether the punishment substituted by the appellate authority to that of reduction to the minimum basic pay of a Conductor was justified or was commensurate to the misconduct held established. Learned counsel would contend, rightly so, that since the dispute was raised at the behest of the Union, the Labour Court cannot go beyond the scope of the reference and, even if it comes to the conclusion that the charges are held established, it cannot award punishment higher than the one imposed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel would contend that the only question which the Labour Court ought to examine is whether the charges levelled against the petitioner-workman are established and if it is satisfied that the charges are, indeed, established, then to examine whether a lesser punishment than the one imposed by the appellate authority could have been imposed including whether the appellate authority was justified in treating the period of suspension as not on duty. Since the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, to reappreicate the evidence on record, and record its findings whether the charges are held established or not, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for its consideration afresh, under Section 11-A of the Act, to reappreciate the evidence on record. It is made clear that, since the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court cannot travel beyond the scope of reference, even if it is satisfied that the charges are held established, the only question, which it can examine with regards proportionality of the punishment, is whether a punishment lesser than the punishment imposed by the appellate authority could have been imposed and whether the period of suspension, which the appellate authority had directed that it be treated as not on duty, should be treated otherwise. Since the dispute relates to the year 1993, and more than 15 years have elapsed since then, I consider it appropriate to direct the Labour Court to decide the dispute, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 27-02-2008 usd