Dismissed

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its v. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial

Telangana HC17 Jun 2009WA/735/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams against the Labour Court's award. The Court upheld the modification of dismissal to compulsory retirement for an employee who died during proceedings, affirming the Tribunal's power under Section 11-A to ensure retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Retirement benefits to be paid by the Appellant within two months; no costs.

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO : 735 of 2009

¶7

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/09/2008 in WP NO : 13718 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶10

..... APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

¶13

Ananatapur

¶14

2 Sri.P.Ethirajulu (died) as per LRs S/o.late Venkataswami R/o.Door No.272, Gandhi Road Tirupati, Chittoor District

¶15

3 P. Kowsalya W/o. late Ethirajulu D.No.272, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶16

4 P. Muni Bhaskar S/o. late Ethirajulu

¶17

D.No.272, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶18

5 P. Muni Kumar S/o. late Ethirajulu

¶19

D.No.272, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶20

6 P. Haritha D/o. late Ethirajulu

¶21

D.No.272, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶22

.....RESPONDENTS

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6: Sri P. Chandramouli

¶26

The Court made the following :

¶27

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶28

WRIT APPEAL No:735 of 2009

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶30

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, is in appeal aggrieved by the order of a learned single Judge dated 9.9.2008 dismissing Writ Petition No. 13718 of 2006 thereby confirming the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Anantapur dated 8.12.2005 in I.D. No. 4 of 2001.

¶31

The deceased-2^nd Respondent in the Writ Appeal was an employee of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings with regard to the alleged theft committed by him in the parakamani on 30.10.1994. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, after conducting a detailed enquiry, dismissed the 2^nd Respondent-Workman from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 2^nd Respondent approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. The Labour Court taking into account the fact that the 2^nd Respondent had worked for twenty eight long years in the service of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, held that the 2^nd Respondent ought not to have been visited with the punishment of dismissal from service

¶32

and accordingly modified the punishment to that of compulsory retirement, so as to enable him to get retiral benefits.

¶33

The learned single Judge confirmed the said award taking into account the fact that no other mis-conduct had been attributed to the 2^nd Respondent during his long service of 28 years. It is also to be noticed that the 2^nd Respondent died during the pendency of the Writ Petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record as Respondents 3 to 6. Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams contended that the evidence adduced before the Labour Court clearly indicates that the 2^nd Respondent was guilty as charged, and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon him by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, ought not to have been interfered with. However, having given our earnest consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court has the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) to modify the punishment taking into account the facts of the case and the proportionality of the punishment imposed. The learned single Judge rightly confirmed the said Award, modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement.

¶34

We, therefore do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

The retirement benefits payable to the Respondents 3 to 6 shall be paid by the Appellant-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶36

T.MEENA KUMARI,J

¶37

Date: 17^th June, 2009

¶38

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶39

pnb

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its v. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its v. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial

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.Satyanarayanaraju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Krishna Murthy, President the Komarada Garllamudi, Vs Rvr Subbaryadu Clerk, The Komarada Garllamudi

The Dharmavanth Junior College Vs Government of A.P.

G. Narasamma Vs M.A. Hafeez

The Divisional Manager, Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal

A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Vs K. Gnaneswara Rao