IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.12886 and 26514 of 1999 WRIT PETITION No.12886 of 1999 Between: The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj-I Depot, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 K.D.Reddy, E.99985 S/o. RamReddy, Plot No.166, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Additional Labour Court, Chandra Vihar, 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the 2nd Respondent in I.D.No.89 of 1996 dt.25-6-98 published in G.O.Rt.No.1492 dt.14-8-98 and quah the Order and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT PETITION No.26514 of 1999 Between: K.D.Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy Plot No.166, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Vanasthali Puram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep, by its managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep by its Depot Manager, Ibrahimpatnam Depot, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep, by its Depot Manager Rani Gunj Depot, Secunderabad. .....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 a Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the increments and other attendant beneﬁts for the period from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement as illegal, arbitary and consequently direct the respondents to ﬁx the salary of the petetioner in appropriate scale of pay after giving the beneﬁt of increment and other beneﬁts from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement and to pay the diﬀerence of pay from the date of reinstatement onwards and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: As the issues that arise for consideration in these two writ petitions are inter-related, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience in disposal of these two cases, I refer to the facts in W.P.No.12886 of 1999 as a basis. W.P.No.12886 of 1999 is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short – ‘the Corporation’) through its Depot Manager, Ranigunj-I Depot in Secunderabad, questioning the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.89 of 1996 dated 25-06-1998. The facts of the case are that the ﬁrst respondent- workman was working as Conductor in the Corporation attached to its Ranigunj depot in Secunderabad and he was on duty on 25-06-1995 in the upper deck of the double decker bus on route No.10K from Secunderabad to Kukatpally and on that day one passenger by name G.Brahmam lodged a complaint against the workman alleging that when he boarded the bus the workman asked him to take ticket and as he had no suﬃcient change an altercation took place and the workman scolded him and hit him with the ticket tray on his head and face and caused bleeding injuries. Based on the complaint, preliminary enquiry was ordered and on receipt of preliminary enquiry report, the workman was suspended and a regular departmental enquiry was initiated by framing the following two charges. “1. For having assaulted one Passenger by name Sri G.Brahmam, Dy.M(O)/IOC while he was travelling in bus No.AEZ 6829 on route No.10K on 25-6-95 which was conducted by you and which shows your high handness which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. The act of assault on passenger resulted in loss of image of the Corporation in the eyes of public which compounded by your bad mannerism of scolding the passenger and hitting with the ticket tray on his head and face which resulted in bleeding injuries to head and nose to the complaint which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” Dissatisﬁed with the explanation oﬀered by the workman denying the charges levelled against him, a domestic enquiry was ordered by appointing an enquiry oﬃcer who on conclusion of the enquiry recorded his ﬁndings to the eﬀect that the charges levelled against the workman are proved. Based on the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, the workman was issued show cause notice of removal from service and on receipt of the explanation, the order of removal from service was issued vide proceedings dated 01-06-1996. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.89 of 1996 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Tribunal, M.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M.1 to M.12 were marked on behalf of the Corporation, and the workman himself was examined on his behalf as W.W.1 on his behalf but no documents were marked. The Tribunal by a reasoned award held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant beneﬁts. Hence, the writ petition. Whereas W.P.No.26514 of 1999 is ﬁled by the workman questioning the action of the Corporation in not ﬁxing his pay properly after giving the beneﬁt of increments and other beneﬁts from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement though the Tribunal by the award in I.D.No.89 of 1996 dated 25-06-1998 ordered for his reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. In the writ petition, the case of the workman is that in view of the beneﬁt of continuity of service given by the Tribunal, the Corporation ought to have computed the increments even for the period he was kept under suspension while fixing his pay after reinstatement. Heard the learned standing counsel for the Corporation and Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy for the workman. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the evidence adduced by the Corporation was not considered in proper perspective and in any event the Tribunal ought not to have granted the beneﬁt of continuity of service and back wages. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submits that though the workman speciﬁcally denied the charges levelled against him, the Corporation failed to examine the complainant by name Sri G.Brahmam to prove those charges and the Tribunal thoroughly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record recorded the ﬁnding that the charges framed against the workman are not proved and so there are no grounds to interfere with the same. It is further submitted that inasmuch as the beneﬁt of continuity of service is given, his pay should not only have been ﬁxed based on his last drawn pay, but also by computing the increments due to him for the period he was kept under suspension. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled in W.P.No.26514 of 1999 except referring to the pendency of W.P.No.12886 of 1999 filed by the Corporation no other reason is mentioned therein. At the out set, the very basis for framing charges against the workman is the complaint of a passenger by name Sri G.Brahmam wherein it was alleged that on 25-06-1995 the workman while on duty as Conductor in the upper deck of the double decker bus on route No.10K from Secunderabad to Kukatpally due to non-avilability of change scolded him and hit him with the ticket tray and caused bleeding injuries. To prove the said charges, the Corporation examined the Chief Inspector of Ranigunj-I depot who conducted the preliminary enquiry as M.W.1 and the Conductor in the lower deck of the bus on the alleged date of incident as M.W.2. Here, it is to be noticed that in spite of the fact that the workman denied the charges levelled against him, the Corporation failed to examine the de facto complainant Sri G.Brahmam. In view of the nature of the charges framed against the workman, more so when the workman denied such charges, the burden shifts to the management to prove those charges by examining the de facto complainant. No valid reasons are assigned for not examining the de facto complainant. Though M.W.2 was the Conductor in the lower deck of the double decker bus he merely stated that the de facto complainant and the workman were pushing each other. His evidence is not at all suﬃcient to prove the charges framed against the workman. Further, the workman who was examined as W.W.1 admitted that an altercation took place between him and the de facto complainant with regard to change and stated that the de facto complainant while going to the lower deck of the bus in that angry mood fell on the railing of the stair case and suﬀered bleeding injury. Since the evidence of M.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated by any further evidence and since the de facto complainant was not examined, the Tribunal by discussing the evidence at length held that the charges framed against the workman are not proved. Though it was argued that the workman was found guilty in the preliminary enquiry conducted by M.W.1, when once the departmental inquiry was initiated by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer, the charges framed shall be proved by valid and cogent evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation is not valid in view of the non-examination of the de facto complainant before the Tribunal. Since a perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has recorded valid and cogent reasons in support of its ﬁnding that the workman is not guilty of the charges framed against him, it cannot be said that the ﬁnding recorded by the Tribunal is either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record as such I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. While recording the ﬁnding that the charges framed against the workman are not proved, the Tribunal also ordered for reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant beneﬁts as such there is no reason for the Corporation in ﬁxing his pay after reinstatement based on the last drawn pay. As the beneﬁt of continuity of service is given with back wages, it is obligatory on the part of the Corporation to ﬁx his pay by taking into account the continuity of service and the increments that would have earned by him during the period for which he was out of service. In that view of the matter, W.P.No.12886 of 1999 is dismissed and W.P.No.26514 of 1999 is disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to re-ﬁx the pay of the workman in the light of the relief granted by the Tribunal in its award in I.D.No.89 of 1996 dated 25-06-1998 by giving beneﬁt of continuity of service and the increments that would have been earned by him had he been in service continuously. Further, it is needless to observe that upon re-ﬁxation of his pay, the workman is entitled to the diﬀerence amount of pay, and such amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs in both the writ petitions. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd October 2008 CVRK