THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.78 OF 2006 DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN K.Govind … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Banswada Depot, Nizamabad District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.78 OF 2006 O R D E R The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No.92 of 2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, assails the NIL Award dated 16.03.2005. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) on 20.05.1998. His name was included in the approved list/ selection list of Conductors. While so, Show Cause Notice dated 18.08.2001 was issued calling upon him to explain as to why his name should not be deleted from the approved list on the ground of unsuitability for regular appointment as certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected while he was conducting a bus service on the Kamareddy route on 07.08.2001. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. Thereupon, the APSRTC issued order dated 03.09.2001 deleting the petitioner’s name from the approved list. His appeal and review having met with failure, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, was of the opinion that issuance of a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner was sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice and therefore confirmed the order dated 03.09.2001 passed by the APSRTC. Admittedly, no enquiry preceded the action of the APSRTC deleting the petitioner’s name from the approved list. Further, the Labour Court did not even examine as to whether the APSRTC complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) while removing the petitioner from service. I n MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPRORATION, BANGALORE V/s. M.BORAIAH[1], the Supreme Court held that termination of services of a probationer for unsuitability would amount to retrenchment in terms of Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947 and therefore Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 would necessarily have to be complied with. The said judgment was only reiterated the principle laid down in DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS LTD. V/s. SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJI[2]. It is no doubt true that in S.GOVINDARAJU V/s. KARNATAKA S.R.T.C.[3], the Supreme Court observed that giving an opportunity of explanation would meet the bare minimum requirement of natural justice. However, this observation must be read in the context of the case. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court in the said Judgment also observed that on the removal of his name from the select list, serious consequences entail as the employee forfeits his right to employment in future. The Court opined that in such a situation even though the regulations do not stipulate affording any opportunity to such employee, the principles of natural justice would be attracted. In the unreported Judgment in SMT.A.HEMALATHA v. A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION[4], a learned judge of this Court, while dealing with an identical fact situation, observed: “……… It is also admitted that no enquiry was conducted. However, respondents claim that a show cause notice was given and at the time of inspection the petitioner herself had admitted the guilt. I have seen the show cause notice. In the show cause notice it has not been put to the petitioner that she had admitted the guilt at the time of inspection. Whatever the charges have been levelled against her in the show cause notice, they were all denied by her in her reply. Therefore, it was imperative for the respondents to conduct an enquiry. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Corporation rules do not contemplate an enquiry with respect to daily wage workers. That might be so, but it is against the rules of natural justice to punish a person by creating a stigma for her which would hurt her throughout her life, without even conducting an enquiry. Since enquiry has not been conducted and an order has been passed which creates a stigma, therefore, the order cannot sustain. This Court’s views are further cemented by the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.Ahuja Vs. State of Punja [2000 (85) FLR 197 (SC)] wherein a probationer had been removed from service on the ground of unsuitability.” In the light of the above settled legal position, the action of the APSRTC in dispensing with the petitioner’s service by deleting his name from the approved list without ceremony is clearly unsustainable. The Award under challenge holding to the contrary is liable to be set aside and is accordingly so done. The Writ Petition is allowed in part setting aside the APSRTC’s proceedings dated 03.09.2001. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service. As he did not choose to make any averment with regard to his not being gainfully employed during the period that he remained out of service, this Court is not inclined to award any back wages. Further, as the order under challenge is being set aside on technicalities, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of continuity of service or attendant benefits. It shall be open to the APSRTC to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if it so wishes. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 10TH DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR [1] (1984) 1 SCC 244 [2] (1977) 4 SCC 415 [3] (1986) 3 SCC 273 [4] W.P.No.401 of 2000 dated 22.06.2000