Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sattenapalli Depot, challenging an award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 6 of 2008 dated 28.06.2011. The Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the second respondent, a former conductor, with back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. The factual background involved an incident on 27.11.2004 when the conductor was on duty and a surprise check by checking officials allegedly found that a woman passenger travelling with her daughter had been issued only one ticket instead of two. A charge memo was issued, a departmental inquiry conducted, and by proceedings dated 28.06.2005 the conductor was removed from service. He exhausted departmental remedies, including appeal and review, and then raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court allowed the dispute, finding inconsistencies in the management's evidence, including the passenger's statement which allegedly changed under threat from checking officials. The conductor's defence was that the bus was overcrowded, two tickets had been issued but one fell, and the neighbouring passenger and driver corroborated issuance of two tickets. The writ petitioner contended that the Labour Court ignored the passenger's categorical statement and 25 exhibits proving guilt, and that the respondent had not pleaded non-employment for back wages, relying on Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla. The respondent relied on JT Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. P.S. Rajagopal Naidu and B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka to argue that a writ of certiorari cannot be used to reappraise evidence. The court noted the submissions and the interim stay of monetary benefits granted on 25.09.2012, while the respondent was reinstated and later attained superannuation during pendency. The extracted judgment text ends without recording a final adjudication, so no specific operative directions or final holding are available from the provided portion.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Writ of Certiorari - Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner APSRTC challenged the Labour Court award ordering reinstatement with back wages, contending the award was passed without appreciating facts; the respondent relied on JT Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. P.S. Rajagopal Naidu and B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka to argue that certiorari cannot be used to reappraise evidence or act as appellate court; the High Court noted these submissions and the principle that certiorari lies only where finding is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence; no final decision was recorded in the extracted text (Paras 11-12).
B) Labour Law - Back Wages - Pleading of Non-Employment - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (no specific section cited) - The petitioner argued that an employee claiming back wages must aver in pleadings that he was not gainfully employed, relying on Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla; the respondent submitted that he was aged 47 at removal and could not secure alternate employment, exhausting appeal and review remedies; the court considered these submissions but no order on back wages was recorded in the available portion (Paras 5-6, 10).
C) Labour Law - Misconduct - Cash and Ticket Irregularity - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (no specific section cited) - The conductor was removed for allegedly issuing one ticket to a passenger travelling with her daughter during a surprise check on 27.11.2004; the respondent claimed two tickets were issued but one fell due to overcrowding, the passenger was coerced by checking officials, and corroborative evidence of a neighbouring passenger and driver supported him; the Labour Court had found inconsistencies in management evidence; the High Court's final view on the appraisal of this evidence is not available in the extracted text (Paras 2-5, 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court award in I.D. No. 6 of 2008 dated 28.06.2011 directing reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law; whether the respondent conductor was entitled to back wages without an averment of non-employment; whether a writ of certiorari could be issued to reappraise evidence and set aside the award
Law Points
- Writ of certiorari under Article 226 is extraordinary and not appellate
- High Court cannot reappraise evidence
- Employee claiming back wages must specifically plead non-employment
- Labour Court award can be set aside only if perverse or based on no evidence
- Interim stay may be granted on monetary benefits while reinstatement is implemented
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 29890 of 2012
P. Durga Prasad, SC for APSRTC; GP for Labour; B. Bal Reddy; D.V. Sasidhar
Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Dist, Sattenapalli Depot, Sattenapalli Post, Guntur District
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur District; Sri S. Bhaskara Rao, S/o Devadanam, aged about 50 years, Ex-Conductor, Sarojinidevi Road, Nagarjuna Nagar, Sattenapalli Post, Guntur District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging Labour Court award in I.D. No. 6 of 2008 directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with back wages and continuity of service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to call for records and quash the Labour Court award dated 28.06.2011 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, and to declare that the second respondent was not entitled to back wages, continuity of service or attendant benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the Labour Court passed the award without appreciating the facts, ignored the passenger's categorical statement and 25 exhibits proving misconduct, and that the respondent failed to aver non-employment for back wages.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court, Guntur passed award in I.D. No. 6 of 2008 dated 28.06.2011 directing reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits; High Court granted interim stay on continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits on 25.09.2012; respondent was reinstated into service as per Labour Court order; respondent attained superannuation during pendency of writ petition.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court award directing reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law.
Whether the respondent conductor was entitled to back wages without pleading that he was not gainfully employed during the period of removal.
Whether a writ of certiorari could be issued to reappraise evidence and set aside the Labour Court award.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred in not considering the passenger's categorical statement and 25 exhibits proving guilt; respondent filed no documents; award was based on presumptions.
Petitioner relied on Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla to contend that employee claiming back wages must aver non-employment, which respondent did not do.
Respondent argued that the Labour Court passed a reasoned order recording inconsistency in petitioner's stand; bus carried over 100 passengers and 20 on roof; passenger received two tickets but one fell; checking officials coerced passenger to retract.
Respondent relied on JT Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. P.S. Rajagopal Naidu and B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka to argue certiorari cannot be used to reappraise evidence; High Court cannot act as appellate court.
Respondent submitted he was 47 years old at removal, could not secure alternate employment, exhausted appeal and review remedies, and no delay occurred in approaching Labour Court.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the award passed in I.D. No. 6 of 2008, dated 28.06.2011, directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent into service together with back wages and continuity of service along with attendant benefits was passed without appreciating the facts.
The 2nd respondent, while on duty on 27.11.2004, issued tickets to the passengers, and when the checking officials conducted a surprise check, one passenger who boarded the bus along with her daughter was found to have been issued only one ticket instead of two tickets.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Reetu Marbles vs. Prabhakant Shukla, had held that the employee claiming backwages must aver in the pleadings that he is not gainfully employed elsewhere.
The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of JT. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Madras and others vs. P.S.Rajagopal Naidu and others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a writ of certiorari, the High Court ought not to act as an appellate Court and reappraise and re-examine the relevant facts and circumstances.
The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has placed another reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that a writ of cerritiorai can only be issued in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction and writ of cerritorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the Tribunal/authority has acted on evidence which is legally in admissible, or has refused to admit an admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts
Procedural History
On 27.11.2004, the second respondent, a conductor, was on duty when a surprise check by checking officials found that a passenger travelling with her daughter had allegedly been issued only one ticket instead of two; a charge memo was issued and a departmental inquiry conducted. By proceedings dated 28.06.2005, the petitioner imposed the punishment of removal from service. The respondent exhausted departmental remedies, including appeal and review, without success. He then filed I.D. No. 6 of 2008 before the Labour Court, Guntur. On 28.06.2011, the Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 29890 of 2012 seeking certiorari to quash the award, along with applications for condonation of delay of 245 days in resubmitting the writ petition and for stay. On 25.09.2012, the High Court granted interim stay on continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits, while the respondent was reinstated into service as per the Labour Court order. The respondent attained superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition. The matter was heard and order pronounced on 11.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
