The Depot Manager v. G. Mallaiah And Another

[ 3387 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI 1.A.NO.2 0F 2023 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO.329 OF 2022 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the Order Dated 03-01-2022 in W.P.No.24'178 ot 2O07 on the file of the High Court. Between The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (previously A. P.S.R.T.C), Narsampet, Warangal District.

...APPELLANT AND

1. G. Mallaiah, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged about 69 years, Occ. Ex-Conductor, (E89980), Fl/o.Gurujala Village, Chennaraopeta Mandal, Warangal District.

2. The Labour Court, Warangal, Rep. by its Presiding Officer ...RESPONDENTS IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 03-01-2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24178 of 2OO7 in the interest of justice. IA NO 10F 2023 Between:

G. Mallaiah and another, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Ex-Conductor, E89980, Rl/o.Gurujala Village, Chennaraopeta Mandal, Warangal District. ...APPELLANT/R1

, AND The . Depot Manager, Telangana .State Road Transport Corporation, Previously A. P.S. R.T. C., Narsaripet, Warangal Disirici.

2. The Labour Court, Warangal, Rep. by its presiding Ofiicer ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 ot 2022 in W.A.No.329/2022 as il devoid of merits and dismiss the appeal. IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section '1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to consider petitioner case for granting Rs.3 Lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs) compensation in lieu of reinstatement towards petitioner service. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI THOOM SR|NIVAS, S.C. FOR TSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.i: SRt A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI I.A.No.2 OF 2O23 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL o.329 OF 2022 COMMON UDGMENT : (Per AKS,I) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 03.01.2022, passed in W.P.No.24l78 of 2007 by a learned Single ludge of this Court.

2.

Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing for the appellant and Sri A.K. -Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that respondent No.1 was working as a Conductor with the appellant. While he was conducting a bus, a surprise check was conducted and it was noticed that respondent No.1 was involved in cash and ticket irregularities. The disciplinary authority, construing the same as misconduct, initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.1 and after conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, imposed punishment of removal from service on respondent No.1 vide order, dated 24.09.2001. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 filed I.D.No.21 of 2003, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial

AITS,J & JAK,- W.A.No.329 of 2O22 Disputes Acl, t947, before the Industrial Tribunal_cum_Labour z Court, Warangal (for short,,Industrial Tribunal,), and the Industrial Tribunal vide Award, dated 24.O4.2006, was pleased to dismiss the said I.D. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing the subject Writ petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court w?e impugned order, dated 03.01.2022, was pleased to partly allow the subject Writ petition by modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Further, the learned Single Judge, instead of granting back-wages, awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.1, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant. 4.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant had further contended that the rearned singre Judge courd not have modified the punishment of removal from service to that oF stoppage of two increments without cumulative efFect, by sitting as an appellate authority over the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 03.0I.2022, and allow the Writ Appeal.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had contended that the Industrial Tribunal ought to have interfered

w AKS,J & JAX,J W .4.No.329 oI2022 with the punishment of removal from service on the ground that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against respondent No.1. Learned counsel further contended that during pendency of the subject Writ Petition, respondent No.1 has attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge instead of granting back-wages has rightly awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

6.

Be that as lt may, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had further contended that respondent No.1 is willing to settle the matter with the appellant and therefore, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking to grant lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation in lleu of reinstatement. Learned counsel further contended that as far as modification of punishment is concerned, the same can be set aside. Learned counsel further contended that, in the interest of justice, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal, as admittedly, respondent No.1 has attained the age of superannuation during pendency of the subject Writ Petition and that the question oF

AXS,J & JAK,.

w.A.No.329 of 2022 ) reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service, at this point of time, would not a rise.

7.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit, dated 15.11.2023, in I.A.No.2 of 2023 stating that he will not make any claim against the appellant-Corporation, if only, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, in principle, has agreed that the appellant-Corporation is willing to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.1 in lieu of reinstatement, if only the impugned order, dated 03.01.2022, passed by the learned Single judge is set aside.

In view of the same and as the learned Single Judge could not have modified the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and that respondent No.1 has attained the age of I superannuation during pendency of the subject Writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated O3.Ot.2022, is liable to be set aside. However, in view of the affidavit, dated 15.11.2023, filed by respondent No.

i{ ,a'- /7 A}iS,J & JAK,J W.A.No.329 of 2022 Rs,3,00,000/- as compensation to respondent No.1 in lieu of ( reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service. 8.

Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 03.01.2022, passed in W.P.No.24L78 of 2007 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, is set aside. However, the appella nt-Corporation is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) as compensation to respondent No.1 in lieu of reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service. It is needless to state that respondent No.1 shall not claim any service benefits from the appellant-Corporation. 9.

With the above observations/directions, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is ordered and the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

SD/- M. MANJULA DEPUW REGISTRAR P SECTION OTFICER //TRUE COPY// To, . The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road. .Transport Corporation' ' i"ilri"r.,i, n.P.S.Ri.C), Narsampet' warangal District . ih" ir"tiiing Officer, Labour Court' Warangal' - . . o"" cc t" sEu THOOM SRlNlvAS, S'C for TSRTC [OPUC] . o;; aa io SRIA. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAo' Advocate IoPUC] - . Two CCs to GP for f-aUour, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad [OUT] o. ihe Section Offic.r, Writ Posting Section' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad'

Z. Tfre Section Cifficer., Writ Service Section' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad B. Two CD CoPies MP GJP

HIGH COURT DATED:2011112023 ?{ 14:

s q ( 0 I JAl,l 202{ oo o .s t * o c c P T COMMON JUD T |.A.NO.2 0F 2023 IN/AND W.A.NO.329 0F 2022 ORDERING THE I.A.NO.2 OF 2023 & DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS \\ w t