Dismissed

Sonteana Jagannadham, Ex-Salesman of Girirajan Co-operative v. The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Telangana HC1 Dec 2010WA/243/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal against an award confirming an employee's removal was dismissed. The High Court held that findings of fact by the Labour Court and the Learned Single Judge are binding, precluding re-appreciation of evidence or exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under the Letters Patent.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sonteana Jagannadham, Ex-Salesman of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO

¶2

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶4

W.A. No.243 of 2010

Dated 01-12-2010

Between:

S.Jagannadham

……..Appellant

Vs.

The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, rep. by its Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam and others.

¶11

………Respondents

¶12

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO &

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶14

W.A. No.243 of 2010

¶15

JUDGMENT (Per HACJ):

¶16

The appellant who is the unsuccessful writ petitioner seeks to invoke Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by him under article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he sought to assail the correctness of the award passed by the Labour Court at Visakhapatnam, rejecting the dispute raised in I.D.No.565 of 1995, dated 05-08-1999 as published in the Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.1692, dated 10-09-1999 confirming the removal order passed against him by the 2^nd respondent-Corporation.

¶17

2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that he has been working as a salesman at the relevant point of time and thereafter, the proceedings were initiated against him by issuing charge memo dated 15-12-1992 on the ground that he failed to account for the sale proceeds and misappropriated an amount of Rs.41,000/- for his personal use. Thus, after conducting regular enquiry and based on the report, the appellant was removed from service. Hence, he invoked the provisions under Sections 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the Labour Court, wherein, both sides adduced evidence. Thereon, the Labour Court did not find favour with the appellant and passed the award against him confirming the removal order. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the writ petition. Even in the writ petition also the learned Single Judge taken into account various submissions, especially, in view of the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the Writ Appeal.

¶18

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge categorically found that the appellant is responsible for the allegations or the charges framed against him, the said finding of fact is binding on this Court, and therefore, this court do not

¶19

re-appreciate the said findings and come to the conclusion independently against the findings of fact as arrived at by the labour Court. Hence, this Court cannot exercise powers of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶20

4. On the face of it, it is open for the appellant to approach the authorities concerned and canvass his grievance against such findings, more so, by adducing any material to support his case

¶21

showing that such finding is perverse or otherwise. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference by this Court.

¶22

5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, since it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the similar circumstances, the cases of some employees viz., M.Sambasiva Rao, V.Neelakantam, K.Potu Raju and P.Mallaiah were considered by the respondent authorities and issued orders in their favour, it is always open for the appellant to make appropriate application before the authorities concerned on the same lines and seek for any orders in his favour on the ground of showing discrimination in his case comparing with such similarly situated employees, and on filing such application, the same may be considered on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ

¶24

Date: 1^st December 2010

¶25

____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO,J

¶26

kvr

Sonteana Jagannadham, Ex-Salesman of Girirajan Co-operative v. The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonteana Jagannadham, Ex-Salesman of Girirajan Co-operative v. The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sudhakar Rao Vs The Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Md. Yousuf Khan Vs The Commissioner

Central Industrial Security Force, (Ministry of Home Affairs Vs Mr.R.L.Mandal

Lakshmi Suri, Vs The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

Shaik Khader Hussain Ongole PRAKASAMAND17 Vs Rajavari Peerla Chavadi Ongole AND76 Ors.

Amara Venkata Laxmamma Vs Rajavari Peerla Chavadi, Ahoor Khana,Gandhi Road,Ongole