IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.8114 of 2004 Between: Y.Chandra Mouli, S/o.Govindu … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Wanaparthy Depot, Mahaboobnagar District and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.8114 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the workman questioning the award dated 30.07.2003 passed in I.D. No.189 of 2000 by the 2nd respondent, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Conductor in the year 1983. The 1st respondent, Depot Manager, Wanaparthy, on a complaint made by some persons appears to have deputed two Senior Traffic Inspectors to verify the waybills of the petitioner and based upon which, disciplinary action was initiated by issuing a charge sheet on 20.04.1999 to the petitioner alleging misappropriation of cash. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 18.05.1999 to the said charge sheet stating that he requires the statements of cash receiving A.D.C’s and the concerned waybills and the S.Rs. but the 1st respondent’s authorities without supplying any statement of the A.D.Cs, based on the reports of the Senior Traffic Inspectors, who have checked the waybills and the S.Rs., appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry and submitted his report. Based on which, the penalty of removal vide order dated 25.01.2000 was imposed upon the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and the learned Labour Court vide its award dated 30.07.2003 while confirming the order of removal dated 25.01.2000, dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed. On behalf of the 1st respondent, counter has been filed stating that the petitioner has misappropriated the revenues of the Corporation by way of opening and closing the ticket numbers at his own accord in the service statistical returns and waybills concerned. The TI-Gr.I has scrutinized the S.Rs. and waybills of the petitioner for the period from April, 1998 to March, 1999 and submitted the report. Based on the report dated 07.04.1999, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 07.04.1999 and a charge sheet dated 30.04.1999 was issued to him framing as many as 52 charges. The petitioner through account sale of tickets in the concerned S.Rs. maintained by him, while remitting the sale proceeds, after the spells of his duty, did not show the sales properly in the waybills, thereby huge revenue of the Corporation was misappropriated by him. It is also submitted that after conducting due enquiry into the charges, leveled against him, giving him reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the 1st respondent has rightly removed the petitioner from service by an order dated 25.01.2000 of the Depot Manager, Wanaparthy. It is further submitted that the concerned ADC and DC were also responsible for the loss of revenue of the Corporation and they were also charge sheeted and penalized. It is further submitted that the counsel for the petitioner filed a Memo under Section 11-A of the Act to the effect that he was not disputing the procedural aspects of the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the learned Labour Court had rightly upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is perverse, as it has not verified the charges leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner was never furnished the documents as desired by him by the Enquiry Officer, during the pendency of the enquiry. Merely because the domestic enquiry was not disputed that was conducted by the departmental authorities it does not mean that the Labour Court cannot go into the matter. Therefore, the learned Labour Court had failed to consider the evidence on record, which resulted injustice to the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the whole award is erroneous and perverse and needs to be remitted for fresh consideration going into all the merits of the case by giving an opportunity to the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. The learned standing counsel submitted that the learned Labour Court had rightly passed the award and warrants no interference of this Court. It is also submitted that the counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, before the Labour Court, filed a Memo to the effect that he was not disputing the procedural aspects of the domestic enquiry, therefore, the Labour Court had no occasion to go into merits of the domestic enquiry. Without reiterating the facts stated above, it is expeditious to come to the point that the learned Labour Court on considering the issue, based on the evidence available before it, had come to a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. But one of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that during the domestic enquiry, he desired some documents but they were not furnished to him, which have become the basis for the Enquiry Officer to come to a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. The Enquiry Officer never considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner wherein the petitioner sought to furnish the required documents. This is also one of the contentions of the petitioner before the learned Labour Court but the learned Labour Court appears on the ground that the domestic enquiry was not disputed, therefore, this aspect had not considered and simply jumped to the conclusion that based on the evidence on record i.e., enquiry report and the supporting documents, the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. When the petitioner filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, the learned Labour Court ought to have exercised its powers vested under Section 11-A of the Act that the Labour Court can reappraise the evidence and substitute its own findings for that of the disciplinary authority. Power exercised by the labour Court/Tribunal is akin to appellate Court. Even where the workman concedes validity of the domestic enquiry, Labour Court is duty bound to re-appreciate the evidence. While holding that findings of misconduct are justified, the Labour Court may award lesser punishment holding discharge or dismissal to be shockingly disproportionate. In the instant case, the entire award passed by the learned Labour Court simply discussed on referring the exhibits, marked on behalf of the Management and the plea that was taken by the petitioner during the enquiry that he was not furnished the material relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and he was not given an opportunity and the staff, who are responsible for such removal direction, were not called for. Non-considering of the plea taken by the petitioner also violates the principles of natural justice. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the award passed by the learned Labour Court, upholding the order of removal, is not justified. Therefore, the matter is required reconsideration by the learned Labour Court to re-apprise the evidence on record with a proper perspective. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Labour Court for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity to both the parties and such exercise shall have to be completed, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.06.2010. LSK