Partly allowed

Aprtc, v. B.Malla Reddy

Telangana HC5 Dec 2012WP/20867/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the A.P.S.R.T.C.'s writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The Court confirmed the Award's finding of an employer-workman relationship and liability under Section 25-F ID Act but set aside the direction regarding future absorption as it exceeded the Court's jurisdiction under Section 2-A.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed findings of employer-workman relationship and Section 25-F liability; set aside direction regarding absorption into future vacancies.

Aprtc, Vs B.Malla Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.20867 of 1999

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

In this writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) is challenging the award dated 30.11.1998 passed in I.D.No.830 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court III, Hyderabad. That was a case relating to retrenchment of a Casual Cleaner.

¶4

The said Casual Cleaner disputing his termination brought I.D.No.830 of 1993. The main defence of A.P.S.R.T.C. is that it did not engage the Cleaner directly and that he worked under a Contractor, by name, Jahangir, who was entrusted with the contract of sweeping and cleaning of A.P.S.R.T.C. buses. The A.P.S.R.T.C., therefore, pleaded that there was no relationship of employer and employee between itself and the respondent and consequently, it is not under an obligation to continue him in service as the work is over. It also pleaded that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) is not applicable to the case of the respondent - workman, inasmuch as there is no workman and employer relationship. The Labour Court, after considering the matter, rejected the above contentions of A.P.S.R.T.C. and by its impugned award directed reinstatement of the respondent - workman without backwages. The Labour Court, however, made certain observations in the award to the effect that as and when vacancies in the posts of Cleaners arise, the respondent be absorbed into the same. The A.P.S.R.T.C. filed similar writ petitions raising the contentions which are referred to supra.

¶5

It may be noted that a perusal of the evidence and the findings of the Labour Court would go to show that there is no compelling reason to dispute its findings regarding the employer-workman relationship and the liability of the A.P.S.R.T.C. for violating Section 25-F of the Act. Hence, to that extent the findings of the Labour Court

¶6

are confirmed.

¶7

So far as the observation and direction of the Labour Court that the respondent – workman should be absorbed into any vacancies which may arise for the posts of Cleaners, this Court in W.P.No.26406 of 1999 and batch dated 18.02.2009 observed that a Labour Court cannot grant such directions regarding the absorption as that is outside the scope of Section 2-A of the Act and set aside the same. That rule laid down by this Court by a learned single Judge was also confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1047 of 2009 on 05.12.2011. Accordingly, in the present case also the observation of the Labour Court regarding the absorption can be said to be without jurisdiction and therefore it is set aside.

¶8

In the judgement dated 05.12.2011, in Writ Appeal No.1047 of 2009, the observations of the learned single Judge in the above writ petition – W.P.No.26406 of 1999 in the order dated 18.02.2009 that it shall be open for the A.P.S.R.T.C. authorities to take steps to dispense with the service of the workmen therein in accordance with the provisions of the Act if their services are not required were set aside on the ground that such observations ought not to have been made. The question of granting that relief does not arise here as this matter is being disposed of today giving the relief only to the above extent.

¶9

Accordingly, this Writ Petition, following the judgement dated 05.12.2011 in Writ Appeal No.1047 of 2009, is partly allowed as indicated above. No costs.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶11

____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶12

05^th December,2012 GHN/DV

Aprtc, v. B.Malla Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aprtc, v. B.Malla Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

All Andhra Bank Panelled Sub-Staff Union, a registered trade Vs Andhra Bank [ a Government of India Undertaking]

D. Nehemya S/o Lazarus Vs The Chairman, A.P. State Civil Supplies

Ch. Subba Rao Vs Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Managing Director, Head Office

L. Bhoopathi Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager

Md.Rafiq, Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Deputy Executive

S.L. Naik Vs The Principle Secretary to the Government