IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8382 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Dilsukhnagar Bus Depot, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 N. Raghunatha Rao S/o N. Laxminarasimha Rao H.No.18-99, Survey of India Gate, Ambedkar Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad 2 Labour Court-I, rep. by Presiding Officer A.P. Hyderabad .....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 especially in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt: 5-2-1998 made in I.D.No.29/1995, Labour Court-I, A.P. Hyderabad published on 20-3-1998, directing reinstatement of 1st respondent into service with continuity of service, attendant benifits and 75% of the back wages; and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8382 of 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.29 of 1995 dated 05.02.1998 directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent-workman into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 75% of the back- wages, the Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar has approached this Court. The 1st respondent, a conductor of the Corporation attached to Dilsukhnagar Bus Depot is alleged to have obtained a bogus caste and residential certificate at the time of his recruitment. The matter was entrusted for investigation and, on verification, it was opined that the said certificate was bogus. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued on 01.07.1986. While matters stood thus, a check was exercised on 28.06.1986 at 14.45 hours when the 1st respondent was conducting the bus on Route No.96. It was detected that he had failed to collect fare and issue tickets to 10 passengers and that he had failed to observe the ticket issue completion point. A charge sheet dated 05.07.1986 was issued framing three charges. An enquiry was held wherein the charges levelled against the 1st respondent on the two charge sheets were held established. Thereafter, the Depot Manager passed orders dated 08.10.1986 removing the 1st respondent from service. The appeal preferred by the 1st respondent was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Hyderabad Division on 09.04.1987. The 1st respondent filed W.P.No.16758 of 1987 questioning the order of removal. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.02.1995 leaving it open to the 1st respondent to move the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1st respondent filed I.D.No.29 of 1995 questioning the order of removal. In reply to the claim statement filed by the 1st respondent-workman, the petitioner herein had filed their counter affidavit. While Ex.M.1 to M.26 were marked, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. The Labour Court held that the 1st respondent should have issued tickets and thereafter moved the bus and that he had violated the regulations in this regard. The Labour Court upheld the findings of the enquiry officer. It, however, held that it was not a case of misappropriation and that there was no criminal intention on the part of the 1st respondent-workman for failing to collect the tickets from the passengers since the bus was overcrowded carrying 150 passengers as against its capacity of 50. With regards submission of bogus caste certificate, the Labour Court held that the disciplinary authority had simply relied on the endorsement of ‘bogus’ mentioned in Exs.M.3 and M.4 and that there was no material to show as to how the Tehsildar could have given such an endorsement. The Labour Court expressed its inability to understand as to how scanty material could be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the said certificate was bogus. The order of removal was set aside. With regards the bogus caste certificate, the Labour Court observed that the petitioner was not precluded from initiating action against the 1st respondent after collecting necessary material and, if it was found that the 1st respondent- workman had really submitted bogus certificates, they could take suitable action against him. The punishment was modified to that of reinstatement with 75% back-wages and attendant benefits with continuity of service leaving it open to the petitioner herein to initiate action afresh under the second charge sheet. Insofar as the second charge sheet is concerned, the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act. It has noted that, as against the capacity of 50, the bus was carrying 150 passengers and that the inability of the conductor to issue tickets to around 50 passengers was on account of the heavy rush in the bus. The Labour Court has also noted that it was not a case where the 1st respondent had collected the fare and had failed to issue tickets and that there was no misappropriation on his part. It is in such circumstances that the Labour Court, while accepting that the charges leveled had been established, interfered with the quantum of punishment. Such a power is available to the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act. The fact, however, remains that with regards the first charge sheet, relating to bogus caste and residential certificate, the Labour Court, while holding that there was scanty material, had set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the authority leaving it open to them to initiate action afresh if they had adequate material. It must be borne in mind that the Labour Court exercises its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no provision under the I.D.Act which confers power on the Labour Court to remand the matter back to the appellate authority or the disciplinary authority where the charges leveled against an employee are held not established. The Labour Court is bound, in case the employer has specifically requested in its counter for permission to adduce evidence afresh, to permit the employer to lead evidence before the Labour Court in support of the charge. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced afresh, is required to take a final decision as to whether the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are held established or not, and if it is held established, then the appropriate punishment to be imposed. The Labour Court has no power to hold that, since the material available is scanty, the order should be set aside leaving it open to the employer to initiate action afresh. While such power would inhere in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such a power is not available to the Labour Court in terms of the provisions of the I.D.Act. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would place a copy of the counter filed by the petitioner herein before the Labour Court wherein he has specifically pleaded that, if for any reason the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was vitiated, then it may be provided an opportunity to lead evidence directly before the Labour Court. In the light of the specific plea in this regard, the Labour Court was duty bound to permit the petitioner herein to adduce evidence afresh. A perusal of the award would indicate that, while the 1st respondent-workman did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary, the petitioner herein, while not adducing any oral evidence, had marked Exs.M.1 toM26. It is also evident that the Labour Court has not even recorded a finding on the validity of the domestic enquiry and whether the enquiry is vitiated or not. It has straight-away exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act. Since the Labour Court has no power to remand the matter back to the authorities directing them to consider the matter afresh and can only pass an award on the basis of the material available before it, or in case of a specific request, permit the employer to adduce evidence afresh, the impugned award of the Labour Court must necessarily be set aside. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would fairly state that pursuant to the award, the 1st respondent-workman has been reinstated into service and that this Court had merely stayed payment of back- wages. Since the matter is now being remanded back to the Labour Court to permit the petitioner herein to adduce evidence afresh, I consider it appropriate to direct maintenance of status-quo with regards employment of the 1st respondent pending an award being passed afresh by the Labour Court. It is made clear that, on the petitioner adducing evidence afresh, the 1st respondent- workman shall also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defence, and thereafter, in the light of the evidence adduced afresh, both by the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the Labour Court shall not only examine whether the charge in respect of the first charge sheet relating to the bogus certificate is held established or not but also examine whether, in the light of its conclusions on charge No.1, coupled with its finding that the charges in charge sheet No.2 has been established; as to what should be the appropriate punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee. Since the dispute has been pending for more than 13 years, it is but appropriate that the Labour Court decides the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ 11.08.2008 GS