THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.18900 of 1999 Dated:19.08.2010 Between: P. Nageswara Rao …. Petitioner AND The labour Court, Guntur, represented by its Presiding Officer and another …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.18900 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari and to quash the Award dated 30.10.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.393 of 1990, as illegal, unjust, contrary and perverse to law and to grant all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was inflicted punishment of reversion from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Dairy Attendant. Consequent on, disciplinary enquiry conducted against him. Questioning the said reversion, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.393 of 1990 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. By Award dated 30.10.1995, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against the four charges framed against the petitioner, only three charges were proved and one charge was not proved; that no finding was given by the Labour Court on the validity of the domestic enquiry and that the petitioner, who was already retired from service, was reverted to the post, which was not in existence and, therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 4. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.2832 dated 14.11.1990, issued by the Government, it referred to the Labour Court for adjudication to resolve the dispute between the General Manager, Krishna District Milk Producers Cooperative Union Limited, Vijayawada and Sri P. Nageswara Rao workman represented by the Secretary APDDC Staff Workers Union (Reg.No.B.22) as to whether the General Manager, Krishna District Milk producers Cooperative Union, Vijayawada is justified in ordering the punishment of reversion to Sri P. Nageswara Rao from the post of Junior Assistant to Time Sale Attendant. The Labour Court answered the issue affirmatively by its Award dated 30.10.1995. Aggrieved by which, the claimant/workman filed the present writ petition. 5. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The petitioner herein had joined the services of the respondent- management as a dairy attendant and was working as such continuously. He was promoted as a Junior Assistant by order dated 10.03.1990. While he was working at Food Mixing Plant, Buddavaram, the Management by order dated 08.02.1984 placed him under suspension and issued the charge sheet on 08.02.1984. The petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner/claimant, the Management had appointed an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner/claimant. It was the contention of the petitioner/claimant that the enquiry officer, did not follow the procedure and the principles of natural justice by not providing proper opportunity to the claimant and not allowing him to cross-examine all the management witnesses. The enquiry officer found that the claimant was not guilty of the charges of taking bribe. It was also contended by the claimant that the Management after satisfying that the workman was not guilty of the charges levelled against him, had reinstated him as a Junior Assistant vide proceedings No.1033/A2/84 dated 23.11.1984 and posted him at Tiruvaru centre, where he was discharging his duties. It was also contended that due to the personal rivalry of the Tiruvuru Manager with the claimant, the Management got reopened the old file to victimize him by imposing the major punishment in question. 6. The respondent-management filed a counter before the Labour Court stating that the workman was a contingent worker and subsequently, he was promoted as Dairy Attendant with effect from 2.4.1974. Thereafter, he was appointed temporarily as Junior Assistant, A.P. Dairy Development Corporation, Hyderabad with effect from 23.12.1977. Subsequently, the claimant was working at Food Mixing Plant, Budhavaram. For the misconduct committed by him as reported by the Manager, Food Mixing Plant, Budhavaram, he was kept under suspension by order dated 08.02.1984 and he was issued a charge sheet dated 09.03.1984 on misconduct of willful insubordination/ disobedience, fraud/dishonesty, in connection with taking bribes, falsification of records and he was required to submit his explanation. He submitted explanation on 20th March, 1984. Having the explanation found not satisfactory, it was decided to hold domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against him and Dr. C. Jaganmohan Rao, Assistant Director was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry after due date notice was issued to the workman. He was afforded all opportunities in the enquiry. Principles of natural justice were followed. The enquiry officer was fair and proper and the enquiry not vitiated with any infirmities or illegalities. The claimant has not cross-examined the management witnesses No.1 to 6. The enquiry officer, by his report dated 16.10.1984 concluded that the workman was guilty of all the charges levelled against him except charge No.3. The management after receipt of the enquiry officer’s report and the connected records and after going through the same, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, awarded punishment of reversion to the lower post. Subsequently, the claimant made a representation dated 24.09.1984 begging pardon and stated that he should not commit such misconduct in future and he is suffering a lot and he may be allowed to work. So the management taking a sympathetic view posted him into the milk chilling centre, Tiruvuru, pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings against him. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the lower Court framed the issue as to whether the General Manager, Krishna District Milk Producers Cooperative Union, Vijayawada is justified in ordering the punishment of reversion to Sri P. Nageswara Rao from the Post of Junior Assistant to time scale attendant. 8. By virtue of the charge sheet, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 08.02.1984 and the charge sheet was issued on 08.02.1984. The Labour Court framed the following charges:- 1. Wilful Insubordination/Disobedience Basis of Charges:- As per the report of the manager, Food Mixing Plant, Budhavaram Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Junior Assistant had himself telephoned and allowed M/s Rajendra & Company, Guntur to lift the unserviceable gunnies on 5.2.84 i.e., Sunday even though the Manager on his way towards Milk Chilling centre, Pamarru to attend the Managers meeting, had strictly ordered not to allow the Firm to lift the gunnies on Sunday. This indicates his disobedience towards the instructions of his superiors. 2. Theft Fraud or Dishonesty in connection with the business on property of the federation, Basis of Charges: As per the written statement of Watchmen, Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Junior Assistant, had issued a delivery invoices for (70 bales) less quantity, as against the actual quantity loaded to be vehicles with a clear malafide intention to earn money illegally which amounts to dishonestly. 3. Taking Bribes: Basis of charges: As per the written appeal Sri. Ganta Subbarao, Partner of M/s. Rajendra & Company, Guntur Sri. P. Nageswararao Junior Assistant had received Rs.2,276-00 (Rupees two thousand two hundred and seventy five only) by demand from the Firm towards less billing of 3500 Nos. of unserviceable gunnies, which clearly shows that the individual had an intention to earn money illegally by way of receiving bribes by deceiving the federation. 4. Falsification of federations records: Basis of charge: As per the written statement of Sri M. Subrahmanyam, Watchman, Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Junior Assistant had pressed him to change the date from 6.2.84 to 4.2.84, which was already changed from 5.2.84 to 6.2.84 as per the latter’s instructions, which indicates his mala fide intention to manipulate the records as per his convenience. 9. Pursuant to the said charges, the petitioner was given show cause notice and he submitted an explanation for the same. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the workman are proved except charge No.3. 10. Before the Labour Court, though no oral or documentary evidence was adduced, basing on the record available before it, the Labour Court considered the entire material on record and passed the impugned order. The finding of the Labour Court is that there were four charges framed against the claimant/workman. On the first charge, it was held that the claimant has disobeyed the orders of the Superior Officer by allowing M/s Rajendra & Company, Guntur, to lift the unserviceable gunnies on 5.2.84 on Sunday even though the Manager, on his way towards Milk Chilling Centre, Pamarru to attend the Managers meeting, had strictly ordered not to allow the firm to lift the gunnies on Sunday. 11. On the second charge also, it was held that it is clear that the claimant delivered 70 unserviceable gunny bags to the party. The enquiry officer stated in his report that the claimant is personally responsible for not having the 70 bundles of unserviceable gunnies in the Go-down physically and accordingly, upheld the 2nd charge against the claimant. 12. The third charge is not proved. As far as the fourth charge is concerned, the Labour Court found that the said charge is proved and ultimately, it held that charges No.1, 2 and 4 are proved. 13. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and as the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, the same was rightly confirmed by the Labour Court. The aspect of reverting the claimant to the next lower cadre i.e., Attendant was also considered by the Labour Court and found that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves no sympathy and hence, it upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given an opportunity and as such, there is a violation of principles of natural justice and that no finding is given on the domestic enquiry and the same was not considered by the Labour Court are unsustainable. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2009, but, his retiremental benefits were not finalized on the ground of pendency of the writ petition. If that is the case, the authorities concerned are directed to finalize the retiremental benefits of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 19th August, 2010 bud