HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No.21928 of 2008

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner, Sri S.Nagaraju, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader

for Labour appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and

Sri K.L.N.Swamy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Unofficial

Respondent No.3 namely, the Undi Co-operative Rural Bank

limited.

2. Facts: The Writ Petitioner was initially appointed as a

Clerk in the 3rd Respondent Co-operative Rural Bank in the

year 1976, thereafter promoted as Assistant Accountant with

further promotion as Accountant; that the Writ Petitioner was

suspended on 02.07.2003 and a charge sheet was issued on

02.09.2003 [Ex.P1] by framing ten charges against the Writ

Petitioner; the Writ Petitioner has submitted a detailed

explanation [Ex.P2]; the Respondent No.3 appointed an

enquiry officer vide Proceedings dated 19.11.2003; that after

conducting an enquiry the Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings

dated 13.05.2004 [Ex.P4] has dismissed the Writ Petitioner

from service; that the Writ Petitioner has preferred an Appeal

 2

before the Court of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Eluru, West Godavari District, bearing A.P.S.E.No.3/2004

[Ex.P5]; that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour/Appellate

Authority, after having considered each charge in detail,

categorically held that the Writ Petitioner was deprived of the

Right of Cross-Examination by an express denial by the

enquiry officer appointed by the Respondent No.3 and

concluded that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and in a

proper manner. The Appellate authority had further held that

it is based on such faulty enquiry that the Writ Petitioner was

dismissed from service and accordingly held the dismissal of

the Writ Petitioner from service as bad in law; that accordingly,

the Appellate Authority had directed the authority to reinstate

the Applicant/Writ Petitioner with continuity of service with

back wages.

3. The Respondent No.3 has preferred a Second Appeal

bearing A.P.S.A. Case No.7/2006 before the Respondent No.1,

namely, the Appellate Authority under Andhra Pradesh Shops

and Establishments Act, 1988; that the Joint Commissioner of

Labour: Zone II, Eluru, by a two page Order had allowed the
 3

Appeal preferred by Respondent No.3 thereby setting aside the

Order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 04.02.2006.

4. Having been aggrieved with this Order passed by the

Joint Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, the present Writ Petition

has been filed and has been pending on the file of this Court

since the year 2008.

5. Sri P.Durga Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner

would submit that the Order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour in A.P.S.E.No.3/2004, dated

04.02.2006 categorically states that the Writ Petitioner was

deprived of exercising his right of cross examination. It has

been submitted that, even upon request, the enquiry officer did

not permit the Writ Petitioner to cross examine the witnesses.

Ld. Counsel would submit that the said enquiry is vitiated on

account of non-adherence to principles of Natural Justice. Ld.

Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a detailed

Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru,

dated 04.02.2006 [Ex.P6] and would submit that the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour has passed a detailed Order dealing

with each and every charge and had arrived at clear findings to
 4

the effect that the domestic enquiry is faulty and it was not

conducted in a fair and proper manner. With these reasons,

the Assistant Commissioner of Labour had directed the

Respondent No.3 to reinstate the Writ Petitioner into the

service with back wages.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would also submit

that a detailed Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of

Labour running to almost 32 pages, which had dealt with each

and every charge, was set aside by the Joint Commissioner by

a cryptic and a non-speaking Order dated 04.09.2008 [Ex.P8].

Ld. Counsel has taken this Court through the Order passed by

the Joint Commissioner of Labour.

7. Sri K.L.N.Swamy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.3 has sustained the Order passed by the Joint

Commissioner. Ld. Counsel would submit that the enquiry was

conducted in a fair manner by the enquiry officer. Ld. Counsel

would submit that the Joint Commissioner has given certain

reasons with respect to some charges.

8. This Court has examined the Order passed by the

Appellate Authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of

 5

Labour in A.P.S.E.No.3/2004, dated 04.02.2006 and the Order

passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour in the Second

Appeal bearing A.P.S.A. Case No.7/2006, dated 04.09.2008.

The Order passed by the First Appellate Authority namely, the

Assistant Commissioner of Labour has dealt with each charge

and also the explanation given by the Writ Petitioner. It is

clearly noted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that the

enquiry officer did not allow the cross examination of some of

the witnesses while allowing some witnesses to be cross

examined. This Court has also perused the Impugned Order

passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, dated

04.09.2008. It is noticed that the Joint Commissioner has set

aside the Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour in a

cryptic manner. This Court is of the considered view that the

Order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour in A.P.S.A.

Case No.7/2006, dated 04.09.2008 cannot be sustained. In

order to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it

appropriate to set aside the cryptic Order passed by the Joint

Commissioner of Labour: Zone-II, Eluru, dated 04.09.2008 in

A.P.S.A. Case No.7/2006 and remand the matter back to the

Joint Commissioner to hear and dispose of the case on merits

 6

by passing a speaking order. Since the Impugned Order itself

has been passed in the year 2008, this Court also deems it

appropriate to stipulate a reasonable time of three months to

enable the Joint Commissioner to dispose of the Appeal

No.7/2006. The Joint Commissioner shall issue Notice to all

the parties well in advance. It is clarified that this Court has

not expressed anything on merit. The Parties are given liberty

to file fresh documents, if they are so advised to, before the

Joint Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner is directed to

accept any documents or grounds or contentions submitted by

either of the parties.

9. The Writ Petition is allowed, the Impugned Order is set

aside. No Order as to costs.

10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms

of this Order.

_________________________________
G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Date: 27.09.2023

MDP