Partly allowed

Surapaneni Murali, Krishna, Krishna Dist. v. the v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc., Hyd. and 2 Othrs

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2024WP/24273/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions challenging a Labour Court award and subsequent regularization proceedings. The Court allowed the petition by the reinstated employee partly to set aside impugned regularization proceedings and direct service continuity without backwages, while dismissing the employer's challenge.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No. 24273 of 2009 allowed in part; impugned proceedings dated 19-10-2009 set aside; service benefits extended; Writ Petition No. 611 of 2009 dismissed.

Surapaneni Murali, Krishna, Krishna… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No: 24273 of 2009 and WRIT PETITION No:611 of 2009

¶7

WRIT PETITION No: 24273 of 2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

Surapaneni Murali, Krishna, S/o. Satyanarayana, Driver, aged 45 years, R/o. Kotha Veluru, Veluru Post, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing^Director

¶13

Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada.

¶15

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to a writ or order more in the nature of^{WRITOFMANDAMUS} declaring the office order dated 19-10-2009 in regularizing the petitioner service wef. 01-07-2009 instead of 19-2-1998 as illegal and arbitrary and set-aside the same and further direct the respondents herein to regularize the petitioner services on par with his junior i.e. wef 19-2-1998 with all consequential benefits including fixation of pay and seniority and pay arrears.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.GOVINDA RAJULU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI K. SATYANARAYAN

¶20

MURTHY, SC FOR APSRTC

¶21

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO: 611 OF 2009

¶23

Between:

¶24

,1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gannavaram Depot, Gannavaram

¶25

• Krishna District.

¶26

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada.

¶27

...PETITIONERS

¶28

AND

¶29

Surapaneni Murali Krishna, S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Kotha Veleru, Valluru Post, Dapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

¶30

The Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its. Presiding^Officer.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and call the records pertaining^toIDNo. 144/2002 dt. 29-3-2007 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur Published in G.O.Rt.No. 1613 dt. 10-7-2007 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 755 OF 2009)

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the award passed in ID No. 144 of 2002 dt. 29-3-2007 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, except reinstatement, pending disposal of Writ Petition.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C. PRAKASH REDDY, SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P.GOVINDA RAJULU

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR

¶37

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶38

APHC010365522009

¶39

iT'

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶41

[3457]

¶42

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶43

PRESENT

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO: 24273/2009

¶46

Between:

¶47

Surapaneni Murali, Krishna, Krishna Dist.

¶48

...PETITIONER

¶49

AND

¶50

The V C And M D Apsrtc Hyd 2 Othrs and Others ...RESPONDENT{S)

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶52

1.P GOVINDA RAJULU

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO: 611/2009

¶55

Between:

¶56

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

¶57

Surapaneni Murali Krishna and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶58

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶59

C PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC)

¶60

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR LABOUR

2.PG0VINDA RAJULU

This Court made the following;

¶66

Common Order;

¶67

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.144 of 2003 dated 29.03.2007. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.p.No.24273 of 2009 submits that the petitioner while working as a driver caused an accident which resulted in an enquiry and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service dated 11.02.2000. The petitioner filed the appeal and review before the competent authorities in vain and subsequently filed I.D. before the labour Court. The labour Court has considered the issue in totality and found that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges as such directed the respondent-corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity but without back wages. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the denial of back wages. 3. The respondent-corporation field the Writ Petition in W.P.No.611 of 2009, challenging the award of the Tribunal whereby the employee of the corporation was directed to be reinstated. This Court vide interim orders dated 22.01.2009 in W.P .No.611 of 2009 granted interim suspension as prayed for. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was reinstated into service, however the proceedings. dated 19.10.2009 were issued which had effectively amcunted to issue orders of fresh appointment to the petitioner with effect from 19.10.2009. He f>ifthe.r submits that the

¶68

¶69

petitioner was in initially appointed on 19.10.1996^{onacasualbasisand} his services from the 1996 till the order of fresh appointment^dated 19.10.2009 would have to be forgone by the petitioner on account of the erroneous proceedings of the respondent dated 19.10.2009.

¶70

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.152 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Class Magistrate Nuzivedu. He further submits that the labour Court has not passed the entire liability for causing accident on the petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled for back wages.

¶71

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation^submitsthat the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent^{mannerandsameresulted} in damage to the bus and he also submits that if the petitioner exhibited anticipation in driving the bus, the accident could have been avoided. The proceedings which are under challenge in the writ petition relate to regularization of services with effect from 19.10.2009.

¶72

The proceedings dated 19.10.2009 would wash off the petitioner’s services from the year 19.10.1996 till 19.10.2009. The stand of the respondents that services of the casual drivers were regularized only as per sanction communicated by the Government and that services of 73 causal drivers were recorded up to the year 2001 were regularized^with effect from 01.07.2009. The proceedings dated 19.02.1998 decasualizing^{theservicesof} the petitioner and issuance of proceedings dated 19.10.2009 wherein the service of the petitioner was regularized with effect^{fronvOT.07.2009.} The

A-'

impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2009 deserves to be set-aside for the

¶77

following reasons:

¶78

The decasualizing proceedings dated 19.02.1998 were issued by the respondents without assigning any reasons. That apart the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and the labour Court has found the punishment of removal from^the service as disproportionate to the charges framed and directed the respondent-corporation to reinstate the petitioner together with extension of service benefits. The labour Court has not granted any back wages to the petitioner. To that extent this Court upholds the award of the labour Court however with respect to the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2009 is concerned, the said proceedings would have to consider the petitioner as in service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and extend the service benefits as the petitioner is entitled for. 8. Insofar as the W.P.No.611 of 2009 filed by the corporation challenging the award is concerned, this Court has granted interim suspension. However, the petitioner-corporation has reinstated the respondent into the service. However, issued the impugned proceedings in W.P.No.24273 of 2009. The 1®' respondent is now serving in the petitioner-corporation^asadriver. 9. No valid grounds are raised for interfering with the findings of the labour Court. Evidently, the contributory negligence of the lorry is also recorded by the labour Court in its detail award.

¶79

Considering the same, this Court does not find any^{reasontointerfere} with the award of labour court.

¶80

¶81

Accordingly, W.P.No.24273 of 2009 is allowed in part^{andW.P.No.611}

¶82

of 2009 is disnnissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶83

Sd/- G. SRINIVAS REDDY DEPUTYvREGISTRAR

¶84

//TRUE COPY//

¶85

sectotTofficer

¶86

To 1. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, RTC House, 3rd Floor, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, 520013.

¶87

2, The Regional Manager, APSRTC, N.T.R Bus Station Entrance Rd, Coastal Andhra Region, Thamma Ranga Reddy Nagar, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522001.

¶88

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

¶89

One CC to Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

One CC to Sri K. Satyanarayan Murthy, SC for APSRT. [OPUC]

¶91

One CC to Sri C. Prakash Reddy, SC for APSRTC. [OPUC]

¶92

Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶93

Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/08/2024

COMMON ORDER

WP.No.24273 of 2009 and WP.No.611 of 2009

¶99

%
70 o<br>a:. m
16 OCT 202^^
^ Curreiu :Scction

¶100

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WP.No.24273 of 2009 & DISMISSING THEWP.No.611 of 2009

Surapaneni Murali, Krishna, Krishna Dist. v. the v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc., Hyd. and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surapaneni Murali, Krishna, Krishna Dist. v. the v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc., Hyd. and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Venkatesh Reddy, Chittoor District. Vs the Commissioner of Endowments Dept.Hyd.and 4 Others

Ch. Suryanarayana Raju. Vs the Commissioner of Technical and 2 Others

B.Nageswar Rao Died Vs The Manager A.P.S.R.T.C

M.Venkata Reddy, Kadapa District and 3 Others Vs the V.C. and M.D., Apiic.

Mr.Mathi Venkateshwara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Thandava Sugars Karmika Union Vs Govt. of a.P., Industries and Commerce and 2 Ors.