DEPOT MANAGER A P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1971-8-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 12,1971

DEPOT MANAGER A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Obul Reddi, J. - (1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of our learned brother, Sambasiva Rao, J. in Writ Petition Nos. 2801 and 3259 of 1967 respectively.2. The appellant filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") for approval of the action taken by the appellant for removal of the and respondent (workman) from the post of conductor in the appellant's service. That application was filed pending disposal of another application made by the respondent workman under section 33-A of the Act, on the ground that the employer had contravened the provisions of section 33 during the pendency of the proceedings in I.D. No. 54 of 1966, concerning an industrial dispute, to which all the workmen including the and respondent herein, were parties, and that application was allowed. The application made by the employer-appellant for approval of the removal of the and respondent from service, was dismissed. The two writ petitions, out of which these two appeals arise,were filed challenging the orders of the Industrial Tribunal.
(2.) The learned Judge repelled the contention of the employer that it should have been afforded an opportunity to adduce additional evidence after the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, who held the domestic enquiry, were perverse as well as violative of the principles of natural justice, on the ground that the employer "had completely rested content by producing the record of enquiry before the Tribunal, without letting in any other evidence", and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the conclusions of the domestic tribunal.
(3.) Mr. V. Rajagopala Reddy, appearing for the employer-appellant, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Management of Ritz Theatre (Private) Ltd. v. Its workmen, (1963) 3 S.C.R. 461 contended that the Tribunal was in error in not affording an opportunity to the employer to adduce additional evidence after it reached the conclusion that the order of the domestic tribunal was vitiated for violating the principles of natural justice, or recording findings which were not warranted on the evidence. Mr. M. Panduranga Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, contended that when the employer had rested its case solely on the record of enquiry of the domestic tribunal and it did not choose to make an application or tender evidence when the application came up for hearing before the Tribunal, it cannot be permitted to complain that it was denied any opportunity to adduce additional evidence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.