THE HON’BLE SRI C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14293 of 2008 Dated: 23.04.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Kothagudem, Khammam District. .. Petitioner. And The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed against award dated 17.12.2007 passed in I.D.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. Petitioner is the management and 2nd respondent is the workman. It appears, when the 2nd respondent was imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of suspension as ‘leave’ due, vide proceedings dated 20.05.1991, he raised a dispute before the conciliation authorities questioning the said proceedings and, on failure of conciliation, the Government of A.P. referred the matter to the 1st respondent-Tribunal, under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), for adjudication of the following issues: “Whether the action of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kothagudem is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages permanently, which shall also have its effect on postponing his future increments besides treating the period of suspension as leave due against Sri P.Gopal, E-74140, Driver, APSRTC, Kothagudem Depot vide order dated 20.05.1991? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” It was the case of the workman, who was working as driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, that on 20.02.1989, his co-worker by name V.N.Rao, conductor, gave a complaint against him and one Md.Alam alleging that they came to RTC quarter in an intoxicated condition and misbehaved with him and his family members by abusing in obnoxious language, for which the management ordered for enquiry and basing on the preliminary enquiry report, he was placed under suspension by order dated 07.03.1989 and charge sheet was issued on the same day. It was the further case of the petitioner that as his act is not connected to the employment and he was not on duty at the time of the alleged incident, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, which will also have its effect on postponing his future increments, besides treating the period of suspension as leave due, is arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, prayed for restoration of increments with arrears and all consequential benefits and also to treat the period of suspension as on duty. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the management denying the allegations made by the workman. It was stated that the workman was censured 3 times, his annual increments deferred 5 times and costs of damages were recovered 4 times. He was suspended once and his pay was reduced once. It was also stated that if at all the complainant scolded the wife of the workman, he ought to have given a complaint to the police. Since the incident took place in the premises of RTC and both the workman and the complainant were residing at RTC quarter and were working under the control of the Corporation, the action initiated by them is lawful. Further, it was stated that the workman, who was in the habit of consuming alcohol, was also involved in other cases and as the allegation in the case on hand is prima facie established, the workman was placed under suspension and after conducting the domestic enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of suspension as ‘leave’ due. Before the Tribunal, though no witnesses were examined on behalf of the 2nd respondent-workman and the petitioner-management, the documents Exs.M1 to M21 were marked on behalf of the petitioner- management. After detailed consideration of the matter and on perusal of the entire material on record, the Tribunal, at paragraph 10 of the impugned order, recorded the following finding: “No doubt the petitioner herein was not on duty but admittedly the incident was occurred within the staff quarters, however, both the complainant and petitioner compromised on the issue and submitted the same to the Depot Manager in writing even prior to the preliminary enquiry and the same was reiterated during the enquiry, but as a measure of discipline among the employees, the penalty of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner and it is quite disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Petitioner kept quiet for nearly 15 years and failed to submit the reasons for his inordinate delay. Though respondent contended that they have destroyed the records after the retention period of 10 years, they have filed the documents i.e., Exs.M-1 to M21 in support of their contention. As per the service and conduct rules, the public servant has to maintain discipline and he should not cause any inconvenience to the neighbours in the staff quarters, but in this case, the complainant himself withdrawn the complaint against the petitioner in view of the compromise between them and there is no basis for the penalty. The action of the Depot Manager dt.20.5.1991 is set aside to an extent of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, however considering conduct of the petitioner and the delay and latches, the Court feels that it is just and reasonable to treat the period of suspension as ‘leave’ due to him.” Basing on the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal passed the impugned award answering the reference holding that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect was not justified and the same was set aside, but confirmed the punishment to the extent of treating the period of suspension of the workman as ‘leave’ due to him. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the management. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner- management, strenuously contended that firstly, there was a delay of more than 15 years in raising a dispute before the conciliation authorities and the Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect and rejected the reference on this ground alone. Further, the fact as to not giving a complaint to the police is not in dispute. He further submits that for extraneous reasons, the Tribunal has set aside the punishment imposed by the management to the extent of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- workman supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the dispute arose outside the employment. That the alleged incident that is said to have occurred in the staff quarters purely relates to the personal life of the 2nd respondent and his co- worker, which could have been referred to any police station for the purpose of launching criminal prosecution, but instead the petitioner- management itself has taken up the enquiry and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of suspension as on ‘leave’ due. In fact, in a case of this nature, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the orders dated 20.05.1991 passed by the management. However, since the management approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the Tribunal in setting aside the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, it may not be proper on the part of this Court to set aside the punishment of treating the period of suspension as on ‘leave’ due. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 23.04.2010 v v