Withholding Increments Without Enquiry Unsustainable | HC

Case Details: T. Raj Kumar vs. Labour Court - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 850 (HC - Andhra Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.
• A. Veerasekhar Rao for the Petitioner.
• Sanisetty Venkateswarulu, SC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was a conductor in the respondent corporation. The charges were framed against him regarding cash and ticket irregularities. Without conducting an enquiry, the respondent had passed a final order whereby the petitioner’s annual increment was withheld for a period of six months, having the effect of postponing future increments.

The petitioner challenged the punishment order before the appellate authority, which was rejected as time-barred. The dispute was thereafter carried to the Labour Court under Section 10-1(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where punishment against the petitioner was confirmed.

It was apparent that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that they had conducted an enquiry before imposing major punishment on the petitioner. Further, the punishment imposed by the respondent, which was mechanically affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Labour Court, was to be interdicted as it was a fundamental breach of procedure established under law.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect without conducting an enquiry against the petitioner was not legally sustainable, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court was to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 26 of 2000, dated 11.02.2005 (para 27) set aside
• Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [1993] 1990 taxmann.com 1802 (SC) (para 17) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [1993] 1990 taxmann.com 1802 (SC) (para 11)
• Punjab State Electricity Board v. Raj Kumar Goel [2014] 8 taxmann.com 720 (SC) (para 15)
• R.D Pachoriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 see Online MP 5841 (para 16)
• Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India 1980 taxmann.com 1225 (SC) (para 20)
• State of Jharkhand v. Harihar Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 114 (para 21)
• Regional Manager, APSRTC Kadapa v. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court [W.P. No. 20551 of 2006] (para 23).