Partly allowed

Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Rep. by its Zonal Manager, v. R. Krishna

Telangana HC23 Jun 2014WA/695/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against a Single Judge's order modifying a Labour Court's Nil Award. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeal, directing that the employee be placed in the seniority list for other discontinued sub-staff to avail services as work arises, rather than immediate reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Respondent's name included in seniority list of discontinued sub-staff; services to be availed as work arises.

Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Rep. by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.A.No.695 of 2014

¶2

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶3

This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 03.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19198 of 2000.

¶4

The facts, in brief, are that the 1^st respondent (for short ‘the respondent) approached Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad by filing I.D.No.9 of 1999 alleging that he was engaged by the appellant as sub-staff on 06.08.1989 and continued in that post till he was orally terminated on 18.05.1998. Reference was made to a Circular, dated 12.10.1992 issued by the appellant for absorption of temporary employees, who have put in 90 days service between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989, against permanent vacancies. The respondent complained that he was retrenched from service in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Act (for short ‘the Act’). By undertaking discussion running into 22 pages, the Labour Court passed a Nil Award, dated 18.07.2000.

¶5

The respondent filed the writ petition challenging the award. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, observing that the respondent worked for 240 days in a calendar year and in that view of the matter, he could not have been retrenched or terminated, except in accordance with Section 25-F read with Section 25-N of the Act. A direction was issued to reinstate the respondent into service.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Labour Court has recorded a clear finding to the effect that

¶7

the respondent did not work for the required length of time for being granted the relief under Section 25-F of the Act and that the learned Single Judge has just proceeded on assumptions. He has also pleaded that though the writ petition was allowed in December 2013, the respondent did not even report to duty and the relief granted to him cannot be sustained in law.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that despite his best efforts, he could not contact his client. He contends that though the Labour Court passed a Nil award, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by undertaking a detailed discussion.

¶9

It is too well known that the Labour Court happens to be the final Forum on facts and it is only when an error apparent on the face of the record is noticed in the award, or any relief is granted or refused contrary to the material available on record, that the High Court can take a different view. In case, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the attention of the Labour Court was not drawn to any specific fact, the proper course open would have been to remand the matter for fresh consideration, so that both the parties would have an opportunity to advance their contentions and place relevant material. Granting of relief straight away, by recording findings, which are not in conformity with the award of the Labour Court, does not appear to be a proper exercise permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, the respondent is not forthcoming to join the duty. In matters of similar nature, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that if a person has been engaged for 90 days by a bank as sub-staff and was discontinued for want of work, his name must be included

¶10

in a list and his services can be availed, as and when the work arises.

¶11

We therefore, partly allow the writ appeal modifying the order of the Single Judge to the effect that the name of the respondent shall be included in the list in the order of seniority along with the other persons, who too worked as sub-staff but were discontinued, and his services shall be availed, as and when the work arises.

¶12

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶14

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶15

Date: 23.06.2014 JSU

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶17

W.A.No.695 of 2014

¶18

Date: 23.06.2014

¶19

JSU

Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Rep. by its Zonal Manager, v. R. Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Rep. by its Zonal Manager, v. R. Krishna

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

The Yemmiganur Weavers Cooperative Vs The Second Appellant Authority Under A.P.

The Managing Director, Vs Boddu Ramulu

N. Madhusudhan Rao S/o Laxmana Rao Vs The District Cooperative Officer

The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Vs P.P. Reddy, Conductor, E-303655

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs K. Rama Rao

Arjun Das Vs the Commissioner of Gift Tax. Hyd.