Andhra Pradesh HC: Limited Role in Reviewing Labour Court Awards in Disciplinary Cases

Post By 24law
December 30, 2024

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s award, reaffirmed that in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court does not function as an appellate authority and has limited scope to interfere with the Labour Court’s findings, particularly on factual aspects. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam dismissed the petition filed by an APSRTC conductor, upholding the Labour Court's decision to sustain his termination for misconduct.

Case Background

The petitioner, Ganasala Krishna, joined APSRTC as a conductor in 1997. In 2005, during a surprise check conducted by the Transport Ticket Inspectors (TTIs) on a bus he was managing, it was discovered that he had collected fares from passengers but failed to issue tickets. This was a violation of the "Issue and Start" rule under the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, constituting serious misconduct.

Despite submitting an explanation, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty, and he was subsequently terminated from service. The petitioner challenged this decision before the appellate and reviewing authorities, both of which upheld the termination. He then approached the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guntur, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Labour Court also dismissed his claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner, represented by Advocate P.N. Murthy, submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the factual aspects of the case. He contended that the passengers involved were under the influence of alcohol and that his explanation was not adequately considered. The petitioner sought reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits while challenging the Labour Court’s award as arbitrary and unjust.

Respondent’s Stand

Advocate Vinod Kumar Tarlada, appearing for the respondent APSRTC, countered that the petitioner was a repeat offender with a history of misconduct. He highlighted that the petitioner had been censured three times and had his increments deferred on two occasions. Further, the respondent submitted 23 exhibits substantiating their case, whereas the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to support his claims.

Key Observations by the Court

Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, citing State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, emphasized that:

The High Court does not act as an appellate authority to reexamine evidence or reassess factual findings.
The Labour Court conducted the proceedings strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice, giving the petitioner ample opportunity to defend himself.
The petitioner’s failure to issue tickets after collecting fares constituted a breach of trust. The Court emphasized that leniency in such cases would be contrary to public interest.

The Bench observed, “In fact, the Writ Petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found the charges proved.” The Court further noted that the petitioner’s claim about passengers being under the influence of alcohol lacked legal significance and evidentiary support.

Verdict

Upholding the Labour Court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that the respondent APSRTC, being a public utility service, operates under mandatory rules that employees must adhere to. The petitioner’s actions violated the rule of “Issue and Start,” demonstrating gross misconduct. Justice Kuncheam remarked, “Failing to issue the ticket after collecting the amount from the passenger constitutes serious misconduct and the petitioner was found guilty of breaching the trust of the Respondent Corporation.”