Dismissed

Sri Ganapathi Raju Ramachandra Raju v. Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court

Telangana HC19 Aug 2004WP/18913/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an award of the Industrial Tribunal reinstating an employee dismissed for alleged service abandonment, arguing procedural violation. The high court held no grounds to re-examine evidence and dismissed the petition, letting the award stand.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No costs awarded.

Sri Ganapathi Raju Ramachandra Raju Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 18913 of 1993

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Ganapathi Raju Ramachandra Raju S/o.late Bangararaju Sri Ramachandra Motor Transport Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam Dist

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Visakhapatnam

¶12

2. Sri Palepu Chidambaram S/o.Butchiraju Sarada Nagar Narsipatnam Visakhapatnam Dist

¶13

....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 an order, direction or a writ particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari after calling for the records from the 1st respondent and quash the award passed in ID.No.242/1990 Dt.31/5/1993 of the 1st respondent and pass such other order.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SRI RAM

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition is filed assailing the award passed on 31.05.1993 in I.D. No. 242 of 1990 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

2. The 2^nd respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act challenging his termination from the service with effect from 27.08.1990. It is the case of the respondent No.2-employee that he was appointed as worker on 15.03.1976 under the establishment of the petitioner, who is bus owner on a salary of Rs.800/- per month. It is his further case that he was removed from service without any notice and without any valid grounds. The said dispute was resisted by the management saying that 2^nd respondent left duty without any intimation and abandoned his service from 27.08.1990 and that when an employee abandoned service by himself, initiating disciplinary action by issuing notice does not arise. In this case, since the abandonment is a voluntary action of the employee, question of management issuing notice and terminating service does not arise.

¶21

3. Two witnesses were examined and Ex.W.1 was marked on behalf of the employee. On behalf of the Management one witness was examined, and Ex.M1 to Ex.M.3 were marked.

¶22

4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the matter held that since the management failed to follow the procedure under Section 23F of the Act, in terminating the services of the petitioner, directed to reinstate the respondentemployee immediately with full back wages with effect from 27.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement @ Rs.610/- per month with attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶23

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Management submits that the Award of the Tribunal is wholly illegal and without any jurisdiction and the Tribunal has committed an error appearing on the face of the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the plea of the Management before the Court below was that the workman was abandoned from service by himself, the said plea was not adjudicated, but proceeded on the basis that the Management has terminated his services and therefore, the award is liable to be set aside.

¶24

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, I am afraid, I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. While adjudicating the matter, the Tribunal recorded the finding that there is termination of service of the respondent No.2 and this Court by exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, I cannot again re-appreciate the evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the Court below is without any evidence on record. Thus, I do not find any merits in this writ petition.

¶25

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

kvrm 19-08-2004

¶27

¶28

1. Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Visakhapatnam

¶29

2. 2 CDs

Sri Ganapathi Raju Ramachandra Raju v. Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganapathi Raju Ramachandra Raju v. Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court

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

M.Nagabhushanam, Vs The Manager

Budha Srinivasa rao Vs Malla Venkata Nookeswara Rao

Chitavalasa Jute Mills(a Diviaion of Willard India Ltd) Vs The Presiding officer

Film Exhibitors Association Hyd Vs Sec Lab Our Department Hyd

The Andhra Pradesh Tax Bar Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Management of Apex Agencies Ltd., Vs The Authority Under Minimus Wage Act