Dismissed

A.anjaneyulu v. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Hyderabad

Telangana HC23 Feb 2010WA/89/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the writ appeal against an order modifying a Labour Court award. The Single Judge had reinstated the appellant in service with continuity but without backwages. The Court held there was no merit in challenging this discretion exercised under Section 11-A and set the appeal aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded.

A.anjaneyulu Vs The Industrial… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.89 of 2010

DATE:23-02-2010

BETWEEN

A.Anjaneyulu

…Appellant

AND

The Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad & Another.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶13

WRIT APPEAL No.89 of 2010

¶14

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy)

¶15

This intra-court appeal by the appellant is directed against the orders of learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P.No.21472 of 1999, dated 5.2.2008.

¶16

The appellant herein, who was appointed as a Conductor in

¶17

the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1987 was attached to Nalgonda Bus Depot. While so, he was served with a charge memo on 15.1.1993 for his unauthorized absence to duty from 27.11.1992 to 15.1.1993. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service by order, dated 31.5.1993. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.61 of 1994 before the Labour Court-1^st respondent herein. The Labour Court by award, dated 17.11.1997 directed the second respondent-Corporation to reinstate the appellant into service as a fresh candidate within a month from the date of publication of the award. On such reinstatement, the appellant filed the impugned writ petition No.21472 of 1999 on 11.10.1999 i.e. nearly after 1 ½ years from the date of reinstatement.

¶18

The learned single Judge by the impugned order modified the award of the Labour Court as under:

¶19

“In the result, the order of removal from service passed by the respondent-management is set aside and the respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and other attendant benefits.”

¶20

The learned single Judge has exercised the discretion which the Labour Court ought to have done under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and modified the award with continuity of service without backwages. We do not see any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge ought to have awarded notional increments from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement into service. The order so passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶21

The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶22

_______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

¶23

_________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.

¶24

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 Tsr.

A.anjaneyulu v. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.anjaneyulu v. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Hyderabad

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

G. Appa Rao, Vs The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare

Sarada Cotton Traders, Vs The Chief General Manager

K.Subba Rao Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Miss G. Vijayalakshmi Vs P.J. Ratnakumar and 3 Ors.

Md. Ap Vikalangula Coop Corp Ltd. Hyd Vs a.P.Prasad and Anr.

A. Vijay Bhaskar Vs The District Employment Officer