The Depot. Manager, v. The Depot., Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
WP/14845/2018 · 2025-06-23
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23099 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23099 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010324382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) s» o i s\ TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 14845 OF 2018 Between: The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND
1. The Depot, Secretary Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Employees Union, Represented on behalf of Smt. B. Jayamma, Conductor, E. No. 425972, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. 2. The Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu Dist. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the award made in I.D.No.117 of 2014, dated 10.06.2015 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur, which was published in the gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.502, dated 13.10.2015, as illegal arbitrary and quash the same. lA NO: 1 OF 201« Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the award dated 10.06.2015 made in I.D.No.117 of 2014 on the file of Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ananthapur pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: — Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR (AP) The Court made the following Order;
1 APHC010324382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 14845/2018 Between; 1.THE DEPOT. MANAGER,, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NANDIKOTKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE DEPOT SECRETARY ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD UNION, EMPLOYEES CORPORATION TRANSPORT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF SMT. B. JAYAMMA, CONDUCTOR, E. NO. 425972, NANDIKOTKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2.THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT. ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DIST.
...RESPONDENT{S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the award made in I.D.No. 117 of 2014, dated 10.06.2015 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur, which was published in the gazette vide G.O.Rt.No. 502, dated 13.10.2015, as illegal arbitrary and quash the same and pass such other order or orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2018
2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the award dated 10.06.2015 made in I.D.No. 117 of 2014 on the file of Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ananthapur pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
2. The Court made the following:
ORDER: Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for petitioner- corporation and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour for the 2'^^ respondent. appearing
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the individual, who is Conductor, did the act of insubordination, due to which, she was awarded the punishment of withholding annual increments for a period of two years, which shall have affect on her future increments. Appeal preferred by the workman was rejected. The Labour Court interfered in the punishment and allowed the I.D. preferred by the workman without any sufficient reason.
Learned counsel would submit that the workman being Conductor, has oblige the instructions of her superiors. The workman, in the present case, deviated the words of Superintendent (Traffic). Due to which, the punishment to
3 % was awarded. Learned counsel prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Learned Government Pleader for Labour, supports the order passed by
3. the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
4. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materia! on record, this Court is of the view that the judicial review on the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, the scope is very limited, except the order is perverse and it was passed ignoring the important material placed before the Court. A fair look at the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, there are clear observations to the effect that except the report of the Superintendent (Traffic) and her statement, which was recorded during the preliminary enquiry, no other materia! is placed on record to show that the workman was at fault. Even as per the report, the workman clearly stated that 20 passengers boarded at the bus stand itself and bus started and was halted outside the bus stand and there passengers were boarding the bus and the workman was issuing tickets to the passengers and at that time the STI approached the bus and asked to divert the service and he did not listen the conversation that went on between the said STI and the workman. In that view, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has
5. exercised their power under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence, there are no
4 grounds warranting interference of this Court in the award passed by the Labour Court.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAF! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTON OFFICEf? To,
1. One CC to SRI. ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
3. Two CD Copies sree
HIGH COURT DATED;24/06/2025
ORDER WP NO. 14845 OF 2018 S( 2 5 JUL 2025 i ViNCajent SectioDx^'^ DISMISSING THE W.P.
WITHOUT COSTS