Writ petition challenging a labour court award denying back wages and reducing seniority after setting aside a removal order. The High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the tribunal's decision.
No back wages or seniority benefits were granted; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY
WRIT PETITION NO : 15991 of 1994
Between:
S.Bhuvaneshwar, S/o. S.S.Krishna Rao, Aged 39 years,resident of 6-3-609/10/2, Anand Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 004.
... PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, after calling for the records on the File of the Labour Court - III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.205/1992 and quash the Award dated 15.10.1993 to the extent of not granting the back wages and to the extent of imposing a punishment of reduction of two ranks in seniority and direct the Second Respondent to Pay the Petitioner all the back wages and other attendant benefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Govt. Pleader for Labour Counsel for the respondent No.2: None appeared.
The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
1. The writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.205 of 1992, dated: 15.10.1993.
2. Petitioner was a mechanic in A.P.S.R.T.C. He was proceeded in a departmental disciplinary proceedings and ultimately he was removed from service. Challenging the removal, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.205 of 1992. The Tribunal after considering the matter held that the removal from service is too harsh punishment and accordingly passed an award directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages and further imposed punishment of reduction in the seniority by two places. To the extent of reduction of seniority, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the writ petitioner and also the back wages.
3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once the Order of removal was not sustainable, the normal relief the employee entitled is that he should be reinstated and the benefits are ought to have been received, but for the removal should be granted to the petitioner and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order denying the back wages and also imposing punishment is illegal. The learned counsel would also submit that the misconduct is so trivial for which the denial of back wages and reduction of two places in seniority
is also equally unreasonable.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The removal order was set aside by the Tribunal and he was given attendant benefits. The tribunal having adjudicated the matter, it cannot be said that it does not possess the jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief including substitution of punishment. Thus I do not find any error, apparent on the face of the record.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
G.BIKSHAPATHY,J
06-08-2004
DVS
To
Chandravihar Building, M.J Road, Hyderabad.
Medchal, Ranga Reddy Dist.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the labour tribunal erred in denying back wages and imposing reduction of seniority despite removing the wrongful dismissal.
S. Bhuvaneshwar
The Labour Court No.III, Hyderabad
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
G. Bikshapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
