IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20100 of 1999 BETWEEN: C. H. S. Narayana S/o Rama Swamy R/o Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, GodavariKhani. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar-I Depot, Karimnagar District. .....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 pass an Order and issue a Writ particularly one in the Nature of Certiorari and quash the Award dated 22/4/1996 in I.D. No. 43/1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar to the extent of not granting the relief, after calling for the records and consequently to direct the Second Respondent to restore the increments with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, dated 22nd April 1996, is questioned. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Conductor and he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-8919 on 15th of December 1980. In view of the said irregularities alleged to have been committed by him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and he was charge-sheeted with the following four charges : “1. For having violated the rule issue and start. 2. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to three individual passengers who boarded the bus at Ramadugu bound for Karimnagar ex.stages 3 to 9. 3. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to 18 passengers (Batch and individuals) who boarded the bus at Ramadugu bound for Rekurthi ex.stages 3 to 7/8. 4. For having failed to close the tray numbers of all denomination upto the point of check.” 3. When the petitioner has filed his explanation denying the above said charges, a regular inquiry was conducted and in view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, a final order, dated 29th August 1981 was passed, withholding three increments with cumulative effect. As against the said order, the petitioner has raised a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and a reference was ordered by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.852, dated 26th April 1994, to the Industrial Tribunal, which was numbered as I.D.No.43 of 1994. The Industrial Tribunal, by award dated 22nd April 1996, has recorded a finding that the dispute raised by the petitioner is a belated one and answered the reference accordingly. However, a finding was also recorded by the Tribunal that the penalty of deferring increments for a period of three years, is excessive. 4. This writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that no procedure was followed while imposing the punishment and that the petitioner was not given the relevant documents by the inquiry officer. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, disputing the allegations made by the petitioner. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that the order imposing the punishment was passed on 29th August 1981. Nearly for more than 13 years, the petitioner did not move in the matter and he raised the industrial dispute only in the year 1994. Even the Industrial Tribunal has adjudicated the matter by its award dated 22nd April 1996. Even thereafter, there is a delay of about three years in approaching this Court by the petitioner. 6. With regard to the nature of charges framed against the petitioner, which are held proved in the domestic inquiry, it cannot be said that the charges framed are either trivial or technical. A perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner shows that as per charge No.2, the petitioner did not issue tickets to three passengers. As per Charge No.3, 18 passengers were not issued tickets. At the same time, the petitioner has also failed to close the tray numbers up to the point of check. In that view of the matter, there was a possibility of motive for misappropriating the revenue of the Corporation. In view of the findings recorded in the domestic inquiry, imposing the punishment of stoppage off three increments cannot be said to be excessive. Having regard to the punishment imposed, it is not a case where power can be exercised by the Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, for substituting the punishment with any lesser punishment. Yet another ground to reject this petition is that though punishment was imposed on the petitioner by order dated 29th August 1981, nearly for more than 13 years, the petitioner did not move in the matter and raised the industrial dispute belatedly in 1994. Even after the award is passed in the year 1996, there is a further delay of three years in approaching this Court. There are no sufficient grounds for this inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it is not a fit case to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th November 2008 ajr