Partly allowed

A.Venkata Rao, v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC15 Nov 2005WP/8314/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order modifies a Labour Court award that reinstated terminated municipal nightwatchmen without back wages. The High Court disagreed with the petitioner's counsel that back wages were automatic upon finding a Section 25(F) violation, citing a three-year delay. The Court modified the relief to restore continuity of service from the date of first appointment but denied back wages.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service from 05-06-1989 and attendant benefits, but without any back wages from 05-06-1998 till the date of reinstatement.

A.Venkata Rao, Vs The Commissioner — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.8314, 8342, 8344 and 8360 of 1999

¶3

WRIT PETITION No: 8314 of 1999

¶4

Between: A.Venkata Rao.

¶5

..... PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

The Commissioner, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, and another. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No: 8342 of 1999

¶8

Between: K.Ramam. ..... PETITIONER AND

¶9

The Commissioner, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, and another. .....RESPONDENTS

¶10

WRIT PETITION No: 8344 of 1999 Between: V.Devendrudu.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Commissioner,

¶14

Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, and another. .....RESPONDENTS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No: 8360 of 1999

Between:

N.Subba Rao.

.... PETITIONER

AND

The Commissioner,

¶21

Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, and another. .....RESPONDENTS

¶22

COMMON ORDER:

¶23

In all these writ petitions, common question of fact and law arise and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶24

There is no necessity to go into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the petitioners were appointed on 05-06-1989 as NMRs on daily wage basis in the 1^st respondent-Municipality (now Corporation). Their services were terminated orally on 01-12-1992. Therefore, they raised dispute in I.D.Nos.20 of 1996, 21 of 1996, 23 of 1996 and 24 of 1996, dated 07-02-1997, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Visakapatnam. The Labour Court found that the petitioners had worked more than 240 days continuously preceding the date of their termination and the oral

¶25

termination of the petitioners is in gross violation of the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, allowed the petition directing the 1^st respondent-Municipality to reinstate the petitioners on NMR basis without continuity of service and without back wages.

¶26

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act are violated, granting of other reliefs like continuity of service and back wages are automatic.

¶27

I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, in these cases, the denial of back wages by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court cannot be said to be unreasonable for the reason that the petitioners have approached the Labour Court with a delay of more than three years and further it cannot be said that the petitioners being labourers were not engaged anywhere gainfully.

¶28

Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are only entitled for continuity of service from 05-06-1989 i.e., from the date of their first appointment till the date of reinstatement for all purposes like seniority, attendant benefits, etc.

¶29

In the result, the Award passed by the Labour Court is modified directing the 1^st respondent-Municipality (now Corporation) to reinstate the petitioners into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without any back wages from 05-06-1998 till the date of reinstatement.

¶30

The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶31

C.V.RAMULU, J

¶32

Date:18-08-2005

¶33

Prv

A.Venkata Rao, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Venkata Rao, v. The Commissioner

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

Gen.Tech.Manager Hmt. Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Honble Court Hyd AND1.

S.Mahaboob Peera and Anr. Vs M/S.I.C.D.S. Ltd. Kurnool and Anr.

R.Krishna Reddy Vs M/s. Suguna Machine Works (P) Ltd.

K.K.Rao, Vs The Hindustan Machine Tools

Saripalli Lakshmikumar Reddy, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation

S.Lakshminarayana Vs State of A.P.