This writ petition challenged a Labour Court award reinstating an employee after removal for causing a fatal accident. The Court held there were no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the punishment was disproportionate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.28326 of 2009
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
the labour court and filed I.D.No.44 of 2008. The labour court, after considering the material evidence and the documents
2
submitted, held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the 1st petitioner is disproportionate to the charges framed against him and modified the punishment by directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent with continuity of service for the purpose of pension, leave and other benefits and at the same time imposed punishment by deferring annual increment of the 1st respondent for one year without cumulative effect. The Corporation has filed the present writ petition challenging the said award.
3
passed in I.D.No.44 of 2008 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Visakhapatnam dated 23.05.2009.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date: 16.11.2023 KAS
4
226
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.28326 of 2009
Date: 16.11.2023 KAS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the award passed by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in termes of reinstatement and deferred increment, deserves interference via writ jurisdiction.
The Corporation
The 1st Respondent
Harinath N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
