Sri K. Ch.Mahanthi, Chairman

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR

Present: - Sri K.Ch.Mohanthy, M.A.,LL.B.,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

WEDNESDAY THE 17 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

I.D.No.147/2011

Between:

M.Babu,

S/o Manikyam,

Aged 44 years,

D.No.19/38, Balaji Nagar Street,

Puttur,

Chittoor district. … Petitioner

AND

1)The Depot Manager,

A.P.S.R.T.C,

Alipiri Depot,

Alipiri,

Chittoor District.

2)The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager,

A.P.S.R.T.C,

Tirupati,

Chittoor district.

3)The Regional Manager,

A.P.S.R.T.C,

Tirupati,

Chittoor district. … Respondents

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 12-10-2012 before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B.S.Hussain, Law officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

2

A W A R D

1) The Petitioner filed this Petition under Section 2-A (2) of the I.D Act, 1947 against the removal order passed by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings

No.P1/1(68)/10-ALPR dated 23-7-2010 with a prayer to set aside the removal order and to direct the Respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

2) The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in the year 1999 in APSRTC. Petitioner discharged his duties sincerely, honestly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he was absent to his duty from 14-5-2010 till the date of issuing the charge sheet i.e., 24-5- 2010. Basing on the report of the Superintendent (T), Alipiri the 1st Respondent issued charge sheet. The charges levelled against the Petitioner are as follows.

CHARGES:

(1)For having absent for your duties from 14-5-2010 to till date unauthorisedly without intimation or sanction of leave and without reasonable cause which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.

(2)For having not available for service for 67 days during the period from January 2010 to till date in addition to your weekly offs which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.

3) According to the Petitioner after spell of hid duty on 13-5-2010 he got omitting and motions and became weak. Later it was detected that he was attacked with jaundice and his body became yellow colour and he took treatment at Walaja in

Tamil Nadu. Due to ill-health only Petitioner unable to attend the duties. The 1st

Respondent without seeing the ill-health of the Petitioner ordered for enquiry.

Petitioner further submitted that a false enquiry was conducted without following the principles of natural justice. The Depot Manager with closed and predetermined mind, basing on the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer passed the illegal, invalid, unjust and arbitrary removal order against the Petitioner. Respondent without framing a charge sheet has alleged that the Petitioner was absent to his duties from 18-7- 2010 to 23-7-2010. The removal order passed against the Petitioner is disproportionate and requested to set aside the same. The appeals made to the higher authorities have become unfruitful.

3

4) Petitioner further submitted that since the date of removal he is out of employment. Petitioner requests to set aside the removal order and to direct the

Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, back- wages and all other attendant benefits.

5) The Respondents has filed detailed counter stating that the Petitioner was appointed as casual Driver on 24-4-2002 and subsequently regularized w.e.f 9-10- 2007. It was reported by the Superintendent (T), Alipiri that the Petitioner absented the duties from 14-5-2010 till the date of issuing the charge sheet i.e., 24-5-2010 without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave. Due to sudden absence of the Petitioner, the services were dislocated and caused hardship to the supervisors besides loss of revenue to the Respondent Corporation. Basing on the above reports, the 1st Respondent issued charge sheet. In order to give further opportunity, a detailed enquiry was ordered. A fair and proper enquiry was conducted into the case, duly following the principles of natural justice. Basing on the findings of the Enquiry

Officer Respondent issued show cause notice of removal from service. After that the 1st Respondent issued removal order. The appeal, review preferred by the Petitioner was rejected on the merits of the case. The order of removal is just and requested to up hold the order of removal.

6) No oral evidence was produced by either of the parties. On behalf of the

Petitioner Ex.W-1 and W-2 are marked.

7) On behalf of the Respondents Ex.M-1 to M-17 were marked.

The points for consideration whether the enquiry conducted by the 1st Respondent is in accordance with the principles of natural justice? Whether the order of removal passed against the Petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct? To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

Heard both sides:

8) The counsel for the Petitioner argued that Petitioner attacked with jaundice and took Ayurvedic treatment at Walaja, Tamil Nadu. After recovery from the ill-heath

Petitioner attended the duty. Petitioner informed about his ill health to the

Respondent authorities. Due to jaundice disease Petitioner unable to attend the duty and there was no dereliction on his part in not attending the duty. The Enquiry Officer without knowing the actual position of the Petitioner has conducted enquiry. The removal order passed by the 1st Respondent is against to the principles of natural 4 justice. Since the date of removal the Petitioner is out of employment and could not secure any alternative employment. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the punishment of removal from service is excessive. Respondent without framing specific charge has alleged that the Petitioner absent to his duties from 18-7- 2010 to 23-7-2010 which is against to the principles of natural justice.

9) The learned counsel for the Petitioner cited various decisions of Superior

Courts. The cited case laws are as follows.

Order of Hon’ble High Court of A.P in W.P.No.16167/2010

Order of Hon’ble High Court of A.P in W.A.No.769/2005 2008 LAB. L.C. 3588 2003 (3) ALT 96 2011 (3) ALD 641 2011 (3) ALD 783

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the decisions of the superior courts are applicable to the case on hand. The Petitioner and his family members are in distress and prayed to set aside the removal order and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

10) The counsel for the Respondents argued that the Petitioner is not a profitable employee to the Corporation. He absented to his duties from 14-5-2010 till the date of issuing the charge sheet i.e., 24-5-2010 without prior permission or intimation. Due to sudden absence of the Petitioner much inconvenience was caused to the depot authorities. Basing on the material the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry. It is the duty of the Petitioner to inform the health condition to the 1st

Respondent. Petitioner absented to his duties. Petitioner is not interested in his job.

Therefore removal order passed against the Petitioner. 1st Respondent followed due procedure of enquiry and basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer the 1st

Respondent issued removal order. The learned counsel for the Respondents cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mansingh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2003-LABIC-1176 SC and submitted that the said case law is applicable to the case on hand. Removal order passed by the 1st Respondent is just and requested to up hold the order of punishment.

5

11) FINDINGS ON POINTS: Initially the matter was heard with regard to the validity of domestic enquiry and held the same as valid subject to reappraisal of the same at the time of final arguments. With the consent of both the parties Ex.W-1 and W-2 are marked for the Petitioner and Ex.M-1 to M-17 are marked for the

Respondents. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo stating that Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry procedure and further requested to re-apprise the evidence on record and to adjudicate the dispute as per the provisions under section 11-A of the I.D Act. Basing on this material, now it has to be scrutinized whether the Petitioner herein is entitled for any of the relief claimed in the Petition.

12) Admittedly, Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Respondent

Corporation. Petitioner was absent to his duties from 14-5-2010 till the date of issuing the charge sheet i.e., 24-5-2010.

13) The contention of the Petitioner is that he was sick as he was attacked with jaundice and he took treatment at Walaja, Tamil Nadu. He informed about his health condition to the Respondent authorities. The removal order passed by the 1st

Respondent is unjust and requested for reinstate him into service.

14) The contention of the Respondents is that Petitioner is a chronic absentee and he absented to his duties unauthorisedly. Due to absence of the Petitioner much hardship was caused to the supervisors and the bus services were badly dislocated; it caused inconvenience to the travelling public.

15) Respondents filed documents. Ex.M-1 is the absenteeism report of the

Superintendent (T), Alipiri wherein mentioned that the Petitioner was absent to his duties from 14-5-2010 to 17-5-2010 i.e., date of submitting the report. Basing on the report of Ex.M-1 the Respondent issued charge sheet against the Petitioner vide Ex.M- 2, wherein Respondent Depot Manager levelled two charges. The first charge is with regard to absence to duty from 14-5-2010 to the date of issuing charge sheet dt. 24- 5-2010 and the second charge is with regard to absence for duties for 67 days during the period from January, 2010 to till the date of issuing the charge sheet. Ex.M-4 is another absenteeism report of the Superintendent (T), Alipiri, wherein mentioned that the Petitioner was absent to his duties from 1-6-2010 to till date i.e., 2-6-2010. Ex.M-5 is the call letter issued to the Petitioner advising the Petitioner to attend the domestic 6 enquiry on 8-6-2010, 9-6-2010, 10-6-2010. Respondent issued charge sheet against the Petitioner vide Ex.M-2. After obtaining explanation to the charge sheet, the

Respondent has to issue a letter to the Petitioner that the explanation of the

Petitioner is not satisfactory, so a detailed enquiry is ordered on the alleged absenteeism. With regard to appointment of Enquiry Officer the Respondent has to inform the Petitioner in a separate letter that particular officer has been appointed to enquire into the absenteeism. In this case the Respondent has not issued any letter informing that particular officer has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry call letter, the Enquiry Officer has mentioned three date in a letter. As per procedure correct and accurate date has to be fixed by the Enquiry Officer. Mentioning three dates in a call letter gives an impression that the enquiry is not conducted in proper form. Ex.M-7 is the domestic enquiry report. In the domestic enquiry, Petitioner was examined, wherein he stated that his health was not good and he was not in a position to drive the bus in Ghat road. Ex.M-8 is the show cause notice of removal issued against the Petitioner. Ex.M-10 is the explanation of the Petitioner to the show cause notice of removal, wherein Petitioner submitted that he was attacked with

Jaundice and was taking treatment for the said disease. He further stated that he is not in a position to attend the duty and there is no mistake on his part and requested to take him into duty. Ex.M-11 is the absenteeism report of the Superintendent (T),

Alipiri wherein mentioned that the Petitioner was absent to his duties from 18-7-2010 to till date i.e., 22-7-2010. Ex.M-11 indicates that the Petitioner was taken into service and he was absent to his duties. After issuing show cause notice of removal

Petitioner submitted explanation to the Respondent Depot Manager. If the

Respondent was satisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner to the show cause notice of removal, then Respondent has to issue order mentioning that the Petitioner was taken into duty. In this case, the Respondent has not filed any such letter showing that the Petitioner was taken into service after issuing show cause notice of removal. Ex.M-12 is the removal proceedings issued by the Respondent Depot

Manager against the Petitioner.

16) A reading of the material on record goes to show that there are procedural lapses in the enquiry. Petitioner absented to his duties due to jaundice. When the health is not permitting the Petitioner to attend the duties, then he informed his health condition to the authorities. Then the Respondent authorities has to refer the 7

Petitioner for better treatment. The Superintendent (T) was sending absenteeism report against the Petitioner and the Respondent conducted make believe enquiry and removed the Petitioner from service. An ill-health person cannot do his work in a skilful manner that too driving the bus on Ghat road. In this Respondent without framing specific charge on the previous absenteeism has alleged that the Petitioner absented to his duties on different occasions which is against to the principles of natural justice.

17) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited the order of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.16167/2010 between J.Madhava Reddy, S/o J.P

Narasimha Reddy, Driver E.No.576167, R/o Jambulavaripalli Village, Daburavaripalli

Post, Anantapur district Vs. the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another where in held that; “Law is well settled that absenteeism, which is not part and parcel of the enquiry, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings.”

The learned counsel for the Petitioner during the course of arguments submitted the decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P on the absenteeism in

W.A.No.769/2005 where in Hon’ble High Court held that;

A perusal of the record goes to show that the Petitioner was absent from 6-8- 2004 to 10-8-2004 on the ground that he suffered from chest pain and he also gave his explanation to the notice issued by the Respondents along with the medical certificates. It is apparent from the proceedings impugned that the punishment of removal from service is based on the unauthorized absenteeism of the Petitioner for the period from 6-8-2004 to 10-8-2004 as well as 16-10- 2004 to 19-10-2004 whereas the charge is confined to only the period from 6- 8-2004 to10-8-2004 to 10-8-2004. In the absence of any material to show that charge sheet has been issued and enquiry was conducted for absenteeism for the period from 16-10-2004 to 19-10-2004 also, it has to be held that the proceedings passed by the 2nd Respondent, are beyond the scope of the charge sheet.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner also cited a decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Depot Manager, APSRTC & Anr. Vs. V.Sunder reported in 2008 LAB I.C 3588 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S.11A – Punishment – Proportionality – Removal from service – Respondent cleaner – Unauthorised absence – punishment of removal – Is disproportionate – Reinstatement ordered – Back wages however completely denied.

8

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted a decision of the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P with regard to medical leave in N.Balakrishna Vs. Security Officer,

APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone and others reported in 2003 (3) ALT 96 wherein the Hon’ble

High Court held that;

Service Law – Removal from service – APSRTC Leave Rules, Rule 11(1) and (3) – Leave on medical grounds - Employee applying for sick leave may produce certificate issued by competent Medical Officer or by his own medical attendant – Petitioner produced medical certificate issued by his private Medical Practitioner – Petitioner removed from service by conducting regular enquiry for unauthorized absence without accepting the said certificate - Such an action of the authority is in violation of Rule 11(3) of the Rules which prescribes that if the genuineness of the medical certificate is doubted, the authority shall refer the case to competent Medical officer for investigation, advice and report which procedure is not followed – For non-compliance of Rule 11(3) of the Rules, the impugned action of the Respondent authority set aside.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent without issuing charge sheet has alleged that the Petitioner absent on different spells. In this regard the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted the decision of Hon’ble High

Court of A.P in W.P.No.9107/2010 in Prameela and Others Vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad and others reported in 2011 (3) ALD 641 wherein held that;

Service and Labour Laws – Sickness – Removal – Order of, passed on ground of unauthorized absence for a period, which does not form part of two charges laid against employee, impropriety – Two charges laid against employee/driver relates to two specific instances or acts of misconduct arising out of his unauthorized absence for period between 17-1-2007 to 31-1-2007 and absence for 134 days during year 2006 – Depot Manager found him unproductive employee because of his repeating same act of misconduct between 22-6-2008 to 3-7-2008 – Clearly reference made to subsequent period of absence is not merely a casual reference, but a clear case of reference for purposes of firming up opinion requisite for ultimately imposing punishment of removal from service – Order of removal thus, came to be passed not for unauthorized absence, which formed part of charges, but for unauthorized absence caused between 22-6-2008 to 3-7-2008 - Order of punishment, liable to be set aside as no person should be condemned unheard.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted the decision of Hon’ble High

Court of A.P in K.A.K Babu Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Madhira Bus Depot,

Khammam District and another reported in 2011 (3) ALD 783; wherein held that:-

Service and Labour laws – Unauthorised absence – Removal from service on ground of, setting aside of, by Tribunal directing reinstatement as a fresh Driver – Denial of continuity of service and entire back wages and attendant benefits, when unjustified – Petitioner, Driver of APSRTC, admitted in government hospital under compelling circumstances – he could not inform of the same to Depot Manager/R1 as being unable to move from bed – No evidence to show that there was any other family member fit to report the matter to authorities – Mere non-intimation of admission in hospital, held, cannot be treated a grave misconduct – More so, when sick and fitness 9 certificate produced at time of joining duty and there is nothing to disbelieve the same – Denial of continuity of service and entire back-wages for such simple mistake committed by Petitioner in not intimating to R1, grossly disproportionate to proved misconduct - Award of Tribunal modified directing reinstatement of Petitioner into service with continuity of service, but in the circumstances, half of back wages and all attendant benefits – Writ Petition allowed accordingly.

The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are applicable to the present case on hand.

18) During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the Respondents cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mansingh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2003-LABIC-1176 SC. The facts of the present case and the facts of the reported case are different, so the case law is not applicable to the present case on hand.

19) The overall reading of the material on hand, facts and circumstances goes to show that the case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are applicable to the case on hand. The punishment imposed by the Respondents appears to be harsh.

20) In view of the facts of the case and decisions of the superior Courts, I am inclined to exercise the provisions under Sec. 11-A of the I.D Act and pass the following order:

The removal order passed by the 1st Respondent vide Order No.P1/1(68)/10-

ALPR dated 23-7-2010 and the orders of the appellate, review authority and the orders of Executive Director, APSRTC, Nellore zone are set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service. The

Petitioner is not entitled for back-wages and attendant benefits on the principle of “No work No pay”. The Respondents are further directed to defer one annual increment without cumulative effect after reinstatement. The points are answered accordingly and an Award is passed.

In the result the I.D is allowed in part. The removal order passed by the 1st

Respondent vide Order No.P1/1(68)/10-ALPR dated 23-7-2010 and the orders of the appellate, review authority and the orders of Executive Director, APSRTC, Nellore zone are set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service. The Petitioner is not entitled for back-wages and 10 attendant benefits on the principle of “No work No pay”. The Respondents are further directed to defer one annual increment without cumulative effect after reinstatement.

Steno-Typist typed to my dictation. Corrected and passed by me on this the 17th day of October, 2012.

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENTS:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

1)Ex.W-1 Dt.23-7-2010Proceedings of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Alipiri Depot.

2)Ex.W-2Dt.16-6-2011Proceedings of the Executive Director, APSRTC, Nellore zone.

FOR RESPONDENTs:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.17-5-2010Absenteeism report of Assistant Manager (T), Alipiri.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.24-5-2010Charge sheet.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.--Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.2-6-2010Absenteeism report of Assistant Manager (T), Alipiri.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.4-6-2010Call letter to the Petitioner to attend domestic enquiry.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.--Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.11-6-2010Domestic enquiry report.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.17-6-2010Show cause notice of removal.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.--Acknowledgment of the Petitioner.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.3-7-2010Explanation of the Petitioner.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.22-7-2010Absenteeism report of Assistant Manager (T), Alipiri.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.23-7-2010Proceedings of the disciplinary authority.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.--Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.14-10-2010Proceedings of appellate authority.

11

15)Ex.M-15Dt.26-12-2010Proceedings of review authority.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.16-6-2011Proceedings of Executive Director, Nellore.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.--Previous punishments of the Petitioner.

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

Read By:

Compared By:

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR.

Present: Sri K.Ch.Mohanthy, M.A., LL.B., Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

MONDAY THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

I.D.No.139/2011

Between:

D.Babu, 43 years, Driver, E-426586, S/o Late D.Ratnam, Door No.3-83, Maddur (V), Chagalamarri Mandal, Kurnool Dist. ….Petitioner

AND

1)The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Koilakuntla Depot, Kurnool district.

2)The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Nandyal, Kurnool district.

3)The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kurnool region, Kurnool district. …. Respondents

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-10-2012 before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B.S Hussain, Law officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) The Petitioner filed this Petition under Section 2-A (2) of the I.D Act, 1947 against the removal order passed by the Respondents vide proceedings

No.02/95(153)/2005-KKL dated 26-5-2006 and requests to set aside the removal order and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

2) The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in the

Respondents Corporation in the year 1998. Since the date of joining the Petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and to the utmost satisfaction of his 2 superiors. While that was so, when the Petitioner was performing the service bus on route Hyderabad to Koilakuntla on 11-12-2005 a check was exercised by the traveling ticket Inspectors of Headquarters Enforcement Squad, Adoni. Basing on the report of the checking officials the 1st Respondent issued a charge sheet against the Petitioner levelling the following charge.

CHARGE:

“For having collected an amount of Rs.8/-each from two individual passengers to a total amount of Rs.16/- at the boarding point itself and failed to issue tickets for the said amount, who boarded your bus at Bethamcherla and alighting at Gorlagutta whilst driving by you with vehicle No.5125 (IMs service) on 11-12-2005 on route Hyderabad to Koilakuntla which constitutes misconduct in terms of clause (x) of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963”.

3) The explanation of the Petitioner is that the passengers boarded the bus at the outskirts of Bethamcherla and they were in drunken state. Since the bus was in the ‘S’ turning and downal so the Petitioner wanted to alight the passengers after passing ‘S’ turning ghat, in the mean while check was exercised. Petitioner has not collected ticket fare from the said passengers. The passengers were in drunken state.

Checking officials dictated the spot statements. Checking officials had not checked the bus cash of the Petitioner. There is no fault on the part of the Petitioner.

4) A farce enquiry was conducted which is illegal and invalid. The Enquiry

Officer failed to take into consideration the material on record. The Enquiry Officer had violated the principles of natural justice. The Depot Manager, without seeing the material on record passed illegal, invalid, arbitrary removal order against the

Petitioner. The appeals made to the higher authorities have become unfruitful. The

Petitioner has no other source of income except earnings from his job. Since the date of removal from service, the Petitioner is out of employment. Petitioner requested to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

5) The Respondents in the Counter stated that the Petitioner was appointed as casual Driver on 1-2-2000. While the Petitioner was performing bus on the route

Hyderabad to Koilakuntla on 11-12-2005, a check was exercised by checking officials 3 of Head quarters Enforcement Squad, Adoni and found certain cash and ticket irregularities. The checking officials found that Petitioner collected an amount of

Rs.8/- from two individual passengers and failed to issue ticket up to the place of check. If there would be no check, Petitioner could have misappropriated the revenue of the Respondents Corporation. Basing on the irregularities committed by the

Petitioner, the checking officials recorded the statement of the passenger and issued charge Memo on the spot. According to the report of the checking officials, the 1st

Respondent issued charge sheet. 1st Respondent ordered for domestic enquiry.

Petitioner was examined during the enquiry. Fair enquiry was conducted. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was issued show cause notice of removal. The explanation of the Petitioner to the show cause notice of removal was not satisfactory, so order of removal was issued against the Petitioner. The order of removal is not ill motivated, it is based on the irregularities committed by the

Petitioner. The Respondents request to up hold the order of removal.

6) No oral evidence was produced either by the Petitioner or by the

Respondents. On behalf of the Petitioner Ex.W-1 is marked.

7) On behalf of the Respondents Ex.M-1 to M-21 are marked.

The points for consideration are whether the enquiry conducted is in accordance with the principles of natural justice? Whether the order of removal passed against the Petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct? To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

Heard both sides:

8) The counsel for the Petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that the passengers in the charge boarded the bus at the out skirts of Bethamcherla in drunken state. Petitioner wanted to alight the said passengers after passing the ‘S’ curve ghat section. Check was exercised immediately after passing ‘S’ curve.

Passengers in order to save themselves from the fine have stated that they paid ticket fare to the Petitioner. Actually, the passengers were not paid ticket fare to the

Petitioner. Checking officials obtained the passenger statement to their dictation. If the checking officials could have checked the bus cash immediately. Then the reality would have come to light. The Respondent Depot Manager failed to look into the realities and removed the Petitioner from service. The removal order passed by the 4 1st Respondent is excessive when compared to the gravity of the misconduct. The learned counsel for the Petitioner cited the following decisions of the superior courts.

1994 (2) LLJ 1173 1999(2) LLJ- page No.1

AIR 1986SC 1986 2009 (1) ALT 183

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the above cited decisions are applicable to the case on hand. The order passed by the Respondents is illegal and invalid. The learned counsel for the Petitioner requested to reinstate the Petitioner in to service with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

9) The counsel for the Respondents argued that the Petitioner is not a profitable employee to the Respondent Corporation. It is the primary duty of the TIM operating service driver to issue the tickets to the passengers and to start the bus.

Petitioner collected an amount of Rs.8/- each from two individual passengers and failed to issue tickets to the passengers up to the place of check. Petitioner with a view to swallow the revenue of the Respondent Corporation failed to issue tickets to the said two passengers. Basing on the irregularities committed by the Petitioner, the checking officials recorded the statement of the passenger. After due enquiry, the 1st

Respondent imposed the punishment of removal. The punishment imposed by the 1st

Respondent is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

10) FINDINGS ON POINTs: Initially the matter was heard with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry and held the same as valid subject to reappraisal of the same at the time of final arguments. With the consent of both the parties Ex.W-1 is marked for the Petitioner and Ex.M-1 to M-21 are marked for the Respondents. The learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo stating that Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry procedure and further requested to re-apprise the evidence on record and to adjudicate the dispute as per the provisions under section 11-A of the I.D Act. Basing on the material, now it has to be scrutinized whether the Petitioner herein is entitled for any of the relief claimed in the Petition.

11) Admittedly, Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Respondent

Corporation in the year 1998. Petitioner was driving the bus on 11-12-2005 on the route Hyderabad to Koilakuntla.

5

12) The allegation against the Petitioner is that Petitioner collected an amount of Rs.8/- each from two individual passengers and failed to issue tickets to the said passengers. Petitioner tried to defraud the revenues of the Respondent Corporation.

13) The defense of the Petitioner is that the passengers in the charge boarded the bus at the outskirts of Bethamcherla and they were in drunken state. Petitioner wanted to alight the said passengers after passing ‘S’ curve but the check was exercised just after passing the ‘S’ curve. There is no malafide intention on the part of the Petitioner.

14) Respondents filed documents. Ex.M-1 is the check sheet issued by the checking officials. Ex.M-2 is the charge Memo issued by the checking officials against the Petitioner. Ex.M-3 is the passenger statement, wherein the passenger Maddilety,

Dalitha Samakya Organiser, stated that they were two, they boarded the bus at

Bathamcherla to go to Gorlagutta and paid Rs.16/- at the rate of Rs.8/- each to the

Driver at the place of check and while they were alighting at Gorlagutta checking officials exercised the check and asked the tickets to them, then they told that they were not given tickets. The passenger Maddilety is a Dalitha Samkya organizer and there is scope from the passenger to ask for ticket at the boarding place but the said passenger at the place of check told that he paid ticket fare at the boarding place and he was not issued ticket. A reading of this statement of the passengers gives an impression that it is far from truth as the Organiser of a Dalitha Samkya may not keep quite when the ticket fare is collected and ticket was not issued to him. This shows that the checking officials dictated the passengers’ statement and the same was attested by the Petitioner/Driver. Ex.M-4 is the driver statement recorded at the place of check; wherein the Petitioner stated that two passengers boarded the bus at

Bethamcherla and they paid Rs.16 /- to him, he forgot to issue tickets to them, and checking officials exercised check at Gorlagutta.

15) Ex.M-7 is the charge sheet issued to the Petitioner. Ex.M-8 is the office order issued by the Respondent Depot Manager against the Petitioner, wherein kept the Petitioner under put of duty. As per procedure, the Respondent has to get explanation from the Petitioner for the charge sheet. In this case, no explanation of the Petitioner is filed. If there is no explanation for the charge sheet by the Petitioner to the Respondent Depot Manager, then the Respondent Depot Manager has to issue 6 a separate letter mentioning that there is no explanation from the Petitioner’s side, so the Respondent appointed the enquiry officer to enquiry into the allegations. In this case, no such letter of appointment of enquiry officer is filed. As per procedure, the

Respondent has to inform the Petitioner mentioning that a particular named officer has been appointed as enquiry officer. The Enquiry officer issued letters to the

Petitioner to attend the enquiry vide Ex.M-10. Ex.M-11 is the enquiry report; wherein the checking official S.Ramakrishna was examined on behalf of the Respondent

Management. Petitioner was also examined, wherein Petitioner stated that the two passengers boarded the bus at the outskirts of Bethamcherla and they were in drunken condition and went inside the bus. As there was ‘S’ turning downal,

Petitioner wanted to stop the vehicle after passing ghat section. Mean while the TTIs checked the bus and framed the case. Petitioner repeatedly called the passengers to purchase tickets, the passengers in the charge were in drunken condition. Petitioner signed in the statement as per the instructions of the checking officials with fear.

Ex.M-12 is the letter issued by the Depot Manager to the Petitioner calling the

Petitioner to submit his comments on the enquiry. Ex.M-14 is the comments/objections submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent Depot Manager mentioning that checking officials forced him to write as fare collected. There was ‘S’ curve, Petitioner wanted to stop the bus after passing ‘S’ curve to alight the drunken passengers.

16) The passengers in the charge were not examined in the domestic enquiry.

It is the duty of the enquiry officer to send call letters to the passengers to attend enquiry. In this case, no such call letters are filed. Non-examination of the passengers in the domestic enquiry is against to the principles of natural justice.

17) A reading of the entire material on record goes to show that the passengers mentioned in the charge boarded the bus at the out skirts of

Bethamcherla and there was ‘S’ turning, so the Petitioner could not stop the bus to alight the drunken passengers. The version put by the Petitioner that there was ‘S’ turning in the ghat has to be accepted that the Respondent has not denied that there was no ‘S’ turning and there is possibility to stop the bus when the Petitioner found the drunken passengers.

7

18) The allegation against the Petitioner is that the passengers paid ticket fare to the Petitioner and they issued tickets. If the version of the checking officials is fact, then there is no prevention for the checking officials to check the bus cash of the

Petitioner.

19) The over all reading of the material on record gives an impression that the

Petitioner had not collected the ticket fare from the passengers and the passengers were in drunken condition and they failed to purchase tickets and the Petitioner was driving the bus in ghat section, so he could not stop the bus immediately. The main duty of the Petitioner is driving the bus, in this duty there is no mistake. The

Respondent Corporation allotted conductor duty also. Petitioner issued tickets to all other passengers. The passengers mentioned in the charge were not issued as the passengers were in drunken condition and could not respond to the Petitioner’s calls.

In such circumstances the Respondent could not have imposed the capital punishment of removal from service. The punishment imposed by the Respondent appears as harsh.

20) A reading of the material on record goes to show that the enquiry officer violated the principles of natural justice. So it can be said that the enquiry is not conducted in accordance with the procedure.

21) During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the punishment inflicted by the 1st Respondent is disproportionate and he cited a decision of High Court of Allahabad in Gopal Das Rawat Vs. U.P State Road

Transport Corporation & Others reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 1173, where in it was held:

Constitution of India – Article 14 and 226 – Industrial disputes Act, 1947 – Punishment – Proportionality of punishment to the gravity of misconduct – disproportionate penalty is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

22) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also cited a decision of Hon’ble High

Court of Madras in between Workman, represented by the General Secretary, India

Cements Employees’ Union, Sankari West Vs. General Manager, India Cements

Limited, Sankari West and another reported in 1999 (2) LLJ- page No.1. Wherein it is held that;

An important facet of right to life is the right to livelihood, because no person can live without the means of living, that is, means of livelihood.

8

23) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also cited the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Olga Tellis and others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 1986 the Supreme Court has observed that;

If the right to livelihood is not treated as apart of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation., such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.

The Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on a decision of Honble High Court of A.P of

C.Basaiah Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tandur, R.R District and others reported in 2009 (1) ALT 183.

Minor lapses – While there cannot be any compromise with the requirement as to honesty in discharge of duties, minor lapses should not lead to deprivation of livelihood to an employee and his family.

24) During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P State Road Transport

Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 239 wherein held that;

Dismissal – Interference by Court – Justifiability and approach –Need for cogent reasons – High court setting aside dismissal only on ground that passengers found without tickets were not examined and cash with bus Driver, alleged to have collected ticket money, was not checked – Labour Court finding that Driver after collecting money from passengers had not issued tickets to them – For reversing findings of fact recorded by domestic tribunal. High Court, held, should not only give reasons but cogent reasons – Non-observance of this would vitiate judicial order – It is clear that there was intention to misappropriate fare recovered from the passengers – Therefore, cryptic Judgment of High Court directing reinstatement and back wages set aside – Constitution of India – Art.226.

25) The case law cited by the learned counsel for the Respondents is not applicable to the present case on hand as the facts and circumstances of the case are quite different, so the same is not taken into consideration. The case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are applicable to the case on hand as the removal from service is a capital punishment which will disturb the life of the

Petitioner and his dependents.

26) The passenger who traveled in the bus was not examined during the domestic enquiry. There are enquiry procedure lapses. Therefore it can be said that the enquiry is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The charge 9 leveled against the Petitioner are not proved. The punishment imposed by the 1st

Respondent is disproportionate when compared to the mistake committed by the

Petitioner.

27) In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Superior Courts, I am inclined to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the I.D Act and pass the following order:

The removal order passed by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings

No.02/95(153)/2005-KKL dated 26-5-2006 and the orders of the appellate, review authorities are set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service. The Petitioner is not entitled for back-wages and attendant benefits on the principle of “No work No pay”. The Respondents are further directed to defer one annual increment without cumulative effect after reinstatement of the Petitioner. The points are answered accordingly and an Award is passed.

In the result the I.D is allowed in part. The removal order passed by the 1st

Respondent vide proceedings No.02/95(153)/2005-KKL dated 26-5-2006 and the orders of the appellate, review authorities are set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service. The

Petitioner is not entitled for back-wages and attendant benefits on the principle of “No work No pay”. The Respondents are further directed to defer one annual increment without cumulative effect after reinstatement of the Petitioner.

Steno Typist typed to my dictation, corrected and passed by me on this the 29th day of October, 2012.

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER :FOR RESPONDENTS :

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

10

1)Ex.W-1 Dt.26-5-2006Proceedings of the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Koilakuntla.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.11-12-2005Check sheet.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.11-12-2005Charge Memo.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.11-12-2005Passenger’s statement.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.11-12-2005Petitioner’s statement.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.--STAR document.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.--Cover containing Top punched tickets.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.19-12-2005Charge sheet.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.19-12-2005Put off duty order.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.--Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.--Call letters.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.24-4-2006Domestic enquiry report.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.25-4-2006Letter to the Petitioner to submit remarks.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.--Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.4-5-2006Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.10-5-2006Show cause notice.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.--Acknowledgment of the Petitioner.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.26-5-2006Proceedings of disciplinary authority.

18)Ex.M-18Dt.7-9-2006Letter by Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Koilakuntla to Sub Postmaster, Koilakuntla.

19)Ex.M-19Dt.13-9-2006Letter from Sub Post Master to Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Koilakuntla.

20)Ex.M-20Dt.6-12-2006Proceedings of appellate authority.

21)Ex.M-21Dt.27-11-2008Proceedings of the review authority.

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

Read By:

Compared By:

11

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR

Present: - Sri K.Ch.Mohanthy, M.A.,LL.B.,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

THURSDAY THE 18 th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

I.D.No.164/2011

Between:

S.M.Basha,

Aged 48 years,

E.No.405578, Driver,

S/o Reddi Saheb, 17/123, Sibyala (Post & Village),

Rayachoty Mandal,

Kadapa District. … Petitioner

AND

The Depot Manager,

A.P.S.R.T.C,

Rayachoty Depot,

Kadapa District. … Respondent

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondent and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 12-10-2012 before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B.S.Hussain, Law officer of the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) The Petitioner filed this Petition under Section 2-A (2) of the I.D Act, 1947 against the removal order passed by the Respondent vide proceedings

No.P2/1/(32)/2008-RCTY dated 23-11-2009 with a prayer to set aside the removal order and to direct the Respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, back- wages and all other attendant benefits.

2) The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in the year 1990 in APSRTC. Petitioner discharged his duties sincerely, honestly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he was 2 absent to his duty from 13-7-2008 to till the date of issuing of the charge sheet i.e., 22-8-2008. Basing on the report of the Traffic Inspector, Rayachoty the Respondent issued charge sheet. The charges leveled against the Petitioner are as follows.

CHARGE:

For having absented for your duties from 13-7-2008 to till date (i.e., 22-8- 2008 date of charge sheet) without intimation or sanction of leave and not produced sick certificate due to which the day to day operation of the depot work dislocated very badly causing lot of inconvenience to the travelling public which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.

3) According to the Petitioner, he was unwell due to back pain. Petitioner submitted sick certificate to the Respondent authorities. The Respondent without seeing the ill-health of the Petitioner ordered for enquiry. Petitioner further submitted that a false enquiry was conducted without following the principles of natural justice.

The Depot Manager with closed and predetermined mind, basing on the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer passed the illegal, invalid, unjust and arbitrary removal order against the Petitioner. The removal order passed against the Petitioner is disproportionate and requested to set aside the same. The appeal submitted to the

Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Kadapa, was also unfruitful.

4) Petitioner further submitted that he has no other source of income except earnings from his job. From the date of removal, he is out of employment. Inspite of his best efforts, he could not secure any alternative employment. Petitioner requests to set aside the removal order and to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

5) The Respondent has filed counter stating that the Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations mentioned in the Petition are false and baseless.

6) After removal from service, Petitioner has approached this court and field the present Industrial Dispute. Prior to filing Industrial Dispute before this Court

Petitioner preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority, Kadapa and the same was rejected on demerits of the Petitioner’s case. Again Petitioner preferred review

Petition before the review authority, Kadapa and the same was considered by the review authority and reinstated the Petitioner into service and imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect.

Respondent further submitted that Petitioner was reinstated into service and now 3 working as Driver at Pulivendula depot and the order passed by the review authority is filed. Respondent requested to dismiss the Petition.

7) No oral evidence was produced by either of the parties. On behalf of the

Petitioner Ex.W-1 and W-2 are marked.

8) On behalf of the Respondent Ex.M-1 is marked.

The points for consideration whether the Petitioner was reinstated by the review authority or not? To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

Heard both sides:

9) The counsel for the Petitioner argued that Petitioner suffered with back pain, so he was taking treatment with the doctor and was not in a position to attend the duty. Petitioner submitted medical certificate to the authorities. The Petitioner informed about his sickness to the authorities and submitted sick certificate to the authorities. Due to severe sickness Petitioner unable to attend the duty and there was no dereliction on his part in not attending the duty. The Enquiry Officer without knowing the actual position of the Petitioner has conducted enquiry. The removal order passed by the Respondent is against to the principles of natural justice. Since the date of removal the Petitioner is out of employment and could not secure any alternative employment. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the punishment of removal from service is excessive.

10) The counsel for the Respondent argued that the disciplinary authority removed Petitioner. Later Petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the same was rejected and again Petitioner filed review Petition before the

Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa region and the same was considered and reinstated the Petitioner into service with punishment of deferment of one annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Now the Petitioner is working in Pulivendula Depot and requested to dismiss the present Petition.

11) FINDINGS ON POINTS: Initially the matter was heard with regard to the validity of domestic enquiry and held the same as valid subject to reappraisal of the same at the time of final arguments. With the consent of both the parties Ex.W-1 and W-2 are marked for the Petitioner and Ex.M-1 is marked for the Respondent.

Subsequently, the learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo stating that 4

Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry procedure and further requested to re-apprise the evidence on record and to adjudicate the dispute as per the provisions under section 11-A of the I.D Act. Basing on this material now it has to be scrutinized whether the Petitioner herein is entitled for any of the relief claimed in the Petition.

12) Admittedly, Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Respondent

Corporation in the year 1990. Petitioner was absent to his duties from 13-7-2008 to till the date of issuing of the charge sheet i.e., 22-8-2008.

13) The contention of the Petitioner is that he suffered with back pain and was not in a position to attend the duty and took treatment from a doctor and informed about his health condition to the authorities. The removal order passed by the

Respondent is unjust and requested for reinstate him into service.

14) The contention of the Respondent is that Petitioner absented to his duties and the Respondent after enquiry removed the Petitioner from service. Petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Kadapa and the same was rejected. Then the Petitioner filed present I.D before this Court. Prior to filing of the

Industrial Dispute before this court Petitioner preferred review Petition before the

Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa and the same was considered and reinstated into service. Now the Petitioner is working in Pulivendula depot. Respondent requested to dismiss the present I.D.

15) Petitioner filed documents. Ex.W-1 is the proceedings of the Depot

Manager, APSRTC, Rayachoty depot, wherein the Respondent Depot Manager removed the services of the Petitioner. Ex.W-2 sickness certificates issued by the

Medical Officer, APSRTC Clinic, Community Health Centre, Rayachoty.

16) Respondent filed document. Ex.M-1 is the proceedings of the Regional

Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, wherein the review Petition preferred by the Petitioner was considered and reinstated into service. In this proceeding, it is also mentioned that the Petitioner was posted to Pulivendula depot. It is further mentioned in the said proceedings that the review authority imposed punishment against the Petitioner duly deferring one annual increment with cumulative effect.

5

17) A reading of the proceedings of the review authority indicates that the

Petitioner was reinstated into service and he was posted to Pulivendula depot. The learned counsel for the Respondent during the course of arguments submitted that the Petitioner was reinstated into service and he is now working in Pulivendula depot.

18) Petitioner filed present Petition against the removal order passed by the

Depot Manager, Rayachoty. Respondent in the counter submitted that prior to filing of the Industrial Dispute before this Court Petitioner had preferred review petition before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa and the same was considered and reinstated into service and filed Ex.M-1 proceedings of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa.

A reading of the proceedings of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa indicates that the Petitioner was reinstated into service and he was posted to Pulivendula depot.

Since the purpose of filing the present Petition before this Court has been served, in this circumstances it is needless to keep the Petition pending before this Court. In the circumstances, the I.D is dismissed. No costs.

In the result the I.D is dismissed. No costs.

Steno-Typist typed to my dictation. Corrected and passed by me on this the 18th day of October, 2012.

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

1)Ex.W-1 Dt.23-11-2009Proceedings of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayachoti.

2) Ex.W-2Dt.--Sickness Certificates.

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.25-5-2012Proceedings of the Regional Manager, 6

APSRTC, Kadapa.

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

Read By:

Compared By:

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR

Present: - Sri K.Ch.Mohanthy, M.A.,LL.B.,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

THURSDAY THE 18 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

I.D.No. 133/2011

Between:

P.Surendra Reddy, Aged 30 years, S/o P.Chandra Reddy, Mukkamarapalli Village and post, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor Dist. … Petitioner

AND

The Deputy General Manager, HR., Lanco Industries Ltd., Rachagunneri, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor Dist. … Respondent

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondent and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 18-10-2012 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri I.Ravindranath, Advocate for the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, filed Memo and same is recorded. Hence this I.D is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. Corrected and passed by me on this the 18th day of October, 2012.

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPUR.

Read By: Compared By:

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Chairman Cum Labor Court, Anantapur

Case No. :EP/0600001/2011 K.Chinthala Reddy. Vs The District Collector, Collector Office, Kadapa.

Date : 16-10-2012

Business: Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petition dismissed. No costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED WITH OUT COSTS Disposal Date: 16-10-2012 Chairman Cum Labor Court, Anantapur 1 of 121/09/24, 19:08