M.Venkateswarlu, v. The Industrial Tribunal,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.24429 OF 2003 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected to I.D.No.189 of 2000, dated 31.07.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Anantapur, insofar as denying the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to grant the said benefits.

2.

Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as conductor on 21.10.1988 and while he was discharging his duties during September, 1998, the checking officials of the 2nd respondent-corporation conducted check and found that the petitioner had indulged in cash and ticket irregularities and the said conduct of the petitioner was construed as misconduct by the disciplinary authority and after initiating disciplinary proceedings for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, has imposed punishment of removal from service, vide proceedings, dated 10.04.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was unsuccessful in the appeal and review. Thereafter, he filed I.D.No.189 of 2000 and the Industrial Tribunal, vide orders, dated 31.07.2002 was pleased to set aside the order of removal. However, while granting the relief, the Industrial Tribunal directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service. But, denied the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and at least granted continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits.

5.

Learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that the Labour Court had rightly passed the orders and no further interference is called for and the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious and grave and no leniency can be shown to the petitioner. There are no merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6.

This Court having considered the rival contentions made by both parties, is of the considered view that the Labour Court ought to have at least granted the benefits for the purpose of terminal benefits. Therefore, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to count the earlier service rendered by him for the purpose of terminal benefits. However, rest of the award is confirmed.

7.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J DATED:12-10-2018 Hsd