Partly allowed

The Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., v. Honble Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Telangana HC1 Jul 2013WP/18009/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of inter-related writ petitions challenging a Labour Court award dismissing a workman and denying back-wages. The Court granted continuity of service for terminal benefits to the workman but dismissed the management's plea for quashing the dismissal award.

What did the court decide?

Period from removal till reinstatement treated as continuity of service for terminal benefits. Writ petition by Management dismissed.

The Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

W.P. Nos. 18009 and 23102 of 2001

¶3

DATE: 01.07.2013

¶4

W.P.No. 18009 of 2001
Between:
The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.	..
Petitioner
and
1. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
2. Elupula Rayamallu	..
Respondents

¶5

W.P.No. 23102 of 2001
Between:
Elupula Rayamallu	..
Petitioner
and
1.Colliery Manager
2.General Manager, SCCL
3.Managing Director, SCCL
4.Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani	..
Respondents

¶6

COMMON ORDER:-

¶7

Inasmuch as these two writ petitions are inter-related, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

¶8

Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short “S.C.C.L.”) represented by its General Manager, Godavarikhani, filed W.P.No. 18009 of 2001 and the workman filed W.P.No. 23102 of 2001 challenging the Award dated 12.09.2000 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No. 49 of 1999.

¶9

While S.C.C.L. is aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court whereby reinstatement of the workman into service was directed, the workman challenges the Award on the ground that his back-wages and continuity of service were denied.

¶10

The workman – Elupula Rayamallu was appointed as Coal- Filler in S.C.C.L. in December, 1993. Subsequently, he was promoted as Coal-Cutter. It is stated that the workman rendered more than 22 years of unblemished service. It is his case that he was attacked by phobic anxiety neurosis on 31.12.1996 as such he fell ill from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.1997. It is his further case that his job is strenuous in nature and he was not in a position to move

¶11

from his bed and attend his duties and had to take treatment in private hospital. The S.C.C.L. issued charge sheet on 05.03.1998 calling for the explanation of the workman. He submitted his explanation and a representation dated 27.08.1998 to consider his case on humanitarian grounds and condone his absence from duty. However, the S.C.C.L. dismissed the workman from service on 15.09.1998 after conducting departmental enquiry. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his service, the workman raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No. 49 of 1999 before the Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The Tribunal, by its Award dated 12.09.2000, allowed the I.D. in part setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the S.C.C.L. to reinstate the workman into service without back-wages and without continuity of service.

¶12

Sri Shyam S Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submits that the medical certificate of the workman was considered neither by the S.C.C.L. nor by the Labour Court.

¶13

The learned Standing Counsel for S.C.C.L submits that admittedly the workman was absent from duty for more than a year without sanction of his leave and the Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement of the workman into service.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Admittedly, the workman was admitted to duty on

¶15

01.01.1998 when he reported to it. It is not in dispute that the workman furnished Ex.M3 - medical certificate dated 17.03.1998. Ex.M4 is medical prescription of the workman. The Labour Court rejected these documents only on the ground that the workman produced them after he was issued charge sheet. Ex.M5 shows that a letter was issued to the workman to report to the Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. The Labour Court observed that there is no evidence to show that the workman appeared for medical examination. Since the record would be with the S.C.C.L., it could have produced it to show that the workman did not appear before the Medical Superintendent. Anyhow, since the workman produced Exs.M3 and M4 - medical certificate and medical prescription for the period of his absence, denial of continuity of his service appears to be not reasonable.

¶16

For the foregoing reasons, W.P.No. 23102 of 2001 filed by the workman is partly allowed to the extent that the period i.e. from the date of removal from service till the date of his reinstatement shall be treated as continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits.

¶17

As far as the impugned Award is concerned, since the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”) which is discretionary, it appears that there is no need to interfere with the same. In a case where misconduct

¶18

involves moral turpitude or any other grave charge, normally removal of service or dismissal would fall. In case of absenteeism, particularly when it is the case of the workman that he had taken treatment and produced evidence to show that he was under the treatment of competent Doctor during the relevant period, normally, the Court should be liberal, and in such circumstances, some other punishment than the removal of service should be imposed. Removal from service would affect not only the life of the workman but also the lives of his wife, children and other dependents on him. Once the Labour Court has exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Act which is discretionary in case of absenteeism, this Court normally would not interfere with it while exercising its power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

In view of the above, W.P. No. 18009 of 2001 filed by the Management of S.C.C.L. is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petitions, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

B. CHANDRA KUMAR,J

¶22

01.07.2013

¶23

bcj

The Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., v. Honble Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., v. Honble Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

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

A.a.Koteswara Rao, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Malleswara Swamy Vs The Commissioner, Government of a.P., Endowments

Mandati Jalapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.J.Jayaram, Vs Dharmavaram Cooperative Town Bank

M.Changal Raju, Vs Mukesh Kumar Meena

Rallabai Chandrappa Vs C Narsimlu