- (1.) The petitioner, South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society, represented by its Secretary, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad. 1st respondent herein, passed in S.A. No. 2 of 1978.
(2.) The relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to this writ petition may be stated in brief : The 3rd respondent, A. Ramdas, was at first appointed as an attender in the year 1966 and was promoted as a Record Keeper in 1968, but he was doing despatch work. He was placed under suspension on 7/12/1972, pending enquiry by the Secretary of the petitioner-society. Charges were framed on 23/12/1972, to which the third respondent submitted his explanation on 9/01/1973. The petitioner, without holding an enquiry and without assigning any reasons, issued another charge-sheet, dated 14/09/1973, with similar charges, to which the third-respondent submitted his explanation on 20/09/1973, denying the charges. Enquiry was thereafter held and he was found guilty partly of the charges by the enquiry officer and based on that report, the petitioner removed the 3rd respondent from service by order dated 10/02/1976. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act, 2nd respondent herein, by way of an appeal. The appeals was allowed and a direction was given to reinstate the third respondent into service with full back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner-society preferred a second appeal before the Labour Court, 1st respondent herein, and the same was dismissed by order dated 4/04/1980. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are : (1) The Courts below have relied on the circumstances, viz., the secretary of the Society, who nominated and constituted the enquiry officer, had no authority, conferred or delegated, as the enquiry officer will have to be appointed by the Managing Committee alone, and, therefore, held that the enquiry is vitiated and void. Since there was evidence of delegation of power by the Managing Committee to the Secretary and the Courts below, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for establishing the same, allowed the case of the third respondent solely based on the said ground and, therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside. (2) The Courts below ought to have directed for conducting enquiry afresh in case the enquiry was found to be defective. (3) The impugned order directing the reinstatement of the third-respondent into service against whom the employer lost confidence is illegal and contrary to the case-law, as the third-respondent would at best be entitled to compensation for loss of service.;