THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 14095 OF 1997 Date: 12.02.2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapur. … Petitioner and The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 14095 OF 1997 ORDER: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Anantapur has filed the present writ petition, aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, in I.D. No. 25 of 1994 dated 06.11.1996, holding that the reviewing authority was not justified in awarding the punishment of appointment of the respondent-workman as a fresh conductor and directing that the said punishment should be restricted for a period of two years. The Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court held that the punishment imposed of fresh appointment could not have been imposed as it was contrary to the regulations and that, under Regulation 17(2), the appellate authority was required to specify the period for which it would operate. Both Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. and Sri M. Ganga Rao, learned Counsel for the second respondent- workman would agree that the punishment imposed by the reviewing authority, treating the workman as having been appointed afresh, could not have been imposed in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 11039 of1998 dated 13.06.1997 wherein this Court, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. T.J. Paul[1], held that the competent authority, while exercising the quasi-judicial powers conferred on him under the statutory rules, was required to strictly adhere to the statutory rules and since the nature of punishment to be imposed had been specified in the regulations, it was not open to the disciplinary/appellate/reviewing authorities to deviate therefrom or to impose a punishment not specifically provided for under the statutory regulations. Since the punishment of appointing the petitioner afresh is not one of those punishments prescribed in the statutory regulations, the reviewing authority could not have imposed the said punishment. That, however, will not conclude the matter since, in the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has held the workman guilty of the charges. Having so held, the Labour Court ought to have considered the quantum of punishment and decided whether the punishment, as imposed by the reviewing authority, was valid and, if not, what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee for the proved acts of misconduct. Except to restrict the operation of punishment for a period of two years, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has not exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the nature and extent of punishment to be imposed. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the matter is remanded for its consideration afresh only on the quantum of punishment to be imposed for the proved acts of misconduct of the workman. Since the dispute relates to the year 1994, and more than a decade has elapsed since then, it is but appropriate that the Labour Court considers the matter afresh and passes a reasoned award in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of this order. Sri M. Ganga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the workman has been continuing in service pursuant to the order of the reviewing authority. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to hold that the workman shall be continued in service till an award is passed afresh by the Labour Court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________________________ Date: 12.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1994