IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7122 of 2008 Between: M. Narasimhulu (Winder), S/o. Durgaiah, C/o. G. Vidyasagar, Advocate, 719, Sri Venkateswara Temple Lane, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy General Manager, M/s. Deccan Polypacks Limited, Regd. Office & Works : S.No. 142 A IDA, Bollaram (Via) Miyapur, Jinnaram Mandal. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. ...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 issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ after calling for the records in I.D.No. 204/2003, dated 13-08-2006 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and quash the award in I.D.No. 204/2003, Dated 30-8-2006 in so far as not granting continuity of service and back wages and imposing major punishment of deferment of increments for two years after reinstatement into service without cumulative effect as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent as trainee helper, in the year 1997. Later on, he was designated as Winder in 2001, and his services were confirmed in that post, with effect from 1.7.2002. Alleging that the petitioner had cut a bag of raw material with hacksaw blade deliberately and caused loss to it, the 1st respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 3.7.2003. After conducting domestic enquiry, it terminated the services of the petitioner, through order dated 21.10.2003. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.204 of 2003, before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court passed an award dated 30.8.2006, setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement of the petitioner, without continuity of service and back wages. Punishment of stoppage of increments for two years, without cumulative effect, was imposed. The petitioner challenges the award, to the extent it had denied the consequential benefits and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no evidence to substantiate the charge against the petitioner and the bag of raw material came to be cut, when the petitioner attempted to test the sharpness of the blade, by cutting a thread of the bag. He contends that when the 1st respondent did not sustain any loss, in terms of raw material, or otherwise, the order of termination was liable to be set aside, in its entirety, and the Labour Court ought not to have denied the consequential benefits to the petitioner. From a perusal of the record, it becomes clear that the petitioner had sharpened a blade, on the request made by another employee. Sharpening of the blade was not the function, or duty of the petitioner, at all. Having deviated from his duty, the petitioner had caused damage to the bag of raw material. Though the petitioner made an attempt to explain that he did not cut the bag intentionally, his plea was not accepted in the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court also expressed its displeasure about the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Irrespective of the loss in terms of money for the 1st respondent, the dislocation of the work and lack of discipline are clearly evident. The Labour Court found that the punishment of termination of service was totally disproportionate to the acts alleged against the petitioner, and accordingly, moulded the relief. It had assigned cogent reasons, in support of the punishment, which is proposed to the petitioner. This court is of the view that the Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, in a just and proper manner, and the award does not warrant any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 3rd April 2008 PAN