BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR.
Present: Sri S.Jagannadham, B.Com.,B.L.,
District Judge,
(FAC) Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
TUESDAY THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
I.D.No.183/2012
Between:
P.Honnur Swamy @ P.Vannur Swamy, Aged 37 years, Driver, E.No.577062, S/o P.Ramzan Saheb @ P.Ramjan Sab, Uddehal (V& P), Bommanahali (M), Anantapur district. ….Petitioner
AND
1)The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kalyanadurg Depot, Anantapur District.
2)The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Anantapur, Anantapur district. …. Respondents
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 19-3-2013 before me in the presence of Sri P.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.02/95(07)/12-KDG dated 20-6-2012 and request 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 year 2011 in the Respondent Corporation. From the date of joining the
Petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. While that was so, when the Petitioner was performing the service bus No.AP28Z 5871 on 30-1-2012 on route Kalyandurg 2 to Srisailam a check was exercised by the Checking officials of A.P.S.R.T.C, they detected certain ticket irregularities. Basing on the report of the checking officials the Respondent issued a charge sheet against the Petitioner levelling the following charges.
CHARGES:
1) “For having violated the rules of the Corporation which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963”.
2) “For having collected the fare amount of Rs.132/- and failed to issue ticket to a passenger who boarded the bus at Kurnool and found alighting at Srisailam i.e., ex.stages 6 to 1, while performing the vehicle No.AP28Z 5871 on the route Kalyandurg to Srisailam on 30-1-2012 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”.
3) “For having update the TIM up to stage No.1 without completing ticket issues while you were performing the vehicle No.AP28Z 5871 on route Kalyandurg to Srisailam on 30-1-2012 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”.
3) The version of the Petitioner in the claim statement is that on 30-1- 2012 about 12 passenger boarded at Kurnool the Petitioner had issued tickets.
One passenger had purchased ticket to the batch of six (6) + 1 tickets and when the Petitioner asked for the tickets, the passenger in the charge stated that his people have purchased the ticket. Petitioner unable to tally the S.R as there were staff in the bus. The checking officials failed to consider the fact.
Petitioner is a driver and he had no Conductor experience. Even though there is no mistake on the part of the Petitioner, the checking officials fabricated a false case against the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the charges leveled against him are false and baseless.
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 appeal made to the appellate authorities have become unfruitful. The Petitioner has no other source of income except earnings from his job. Petitioner further stated that he is a poor man serving with big family. Since the date of removal from service the 3
Petitioner is out of employment. Petitioner requested to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back-wages and all other attendant benefits.
5) When the case was posted to 10-4-2013 for Counter and documents of the Respondents, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner filed I.A.No.31/2013 with a request to advance this Petition and further stated that the review authority advised him to with-draw the I.D for consideration of his appeal.
Above said I.A was allowed and case is advanced to 19-3-2013. The Counsel for the Petitioner filed Memo with drawing I.D.No.183/2012 and the same is recorded. I.D is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
6) In the result, the Advocate for Petitioner filed Petition to advance this
Petition. I.A.No.31/2013 is allowed. This case is advanced to this day. The
Counsel for the Petitioner filed Memo with drawing I.D.No.183/2012 and the same is recorded. I.D is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Steno Typist typed to my dictation, corrected and passed by me on this the 19th day of March, 2013.
Sd/-S.Jannadham,
District Judge,
(FAC) 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:
-Nil-
FOR RESPONDENT:
-Nil-
Sd/-S.Jagannadham,
District Judge,
(FAC) Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
ANANTAPUR.
4
Read By: Compared By:
// By order //
Superintendent. Labour Court, Anantapuram.