Allowed

B.Peeru Babu v. The Central Government industrial Tribunal

Telangana HC9 Jun 2014WA/910/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging an Industrial Tribunal award and a Single Judge order. The Court held the applicant entitled to retirement benefits treating the Tribunal award date as superannuation, directing the 2nd respondent to pay the calculated amount within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to pay retirement benefits calculated treating the Tribunal award date as superannuation within six weeks.

B.Peeru Babu Vs The Central Government… — 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 WRIT APPEAL No.910 of 2014

¶2

JUDGMENT : (Per LNR,,J)

¶3

The appellant joined the service of M/s. Hindusthan Zink Limited, the 2^nd respondent, as an unskilled worker on 13.04.1984 and, one year thereafter, his services in that post were confirmed. He was promoted as Senior Material Issuer, in the year 1998.

¶4

The 2^nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and placed him under suspension on 08.06.1999. It was followed by a charge sheet, dated 23.06.1999. It was alleged that the appellant and another person by name M. Sadhu Rao have committed theft of electrodes. Simultaneously, criminal proceedings before the criminal Courts were also initiated. In the criminal case, however, the appellant was acquitted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, dated 03.10.2000, holding that the charges against the appellant were proved. The 2^nd respondent accepted the findings in the report and issued a show-cause notice to the appellant, proposing major punishment. The appellant submitted an explanation, and taking the same into account, the 2^nd respondent passed an order, dated 31.03.2001, discharging the appellant from service. Departmental appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected.

¶5

The appellant approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by filing I.D.L.C.I.D.No.65 of 2002. Several grounds were urged by the appellant before the Tribunal. In its award dated 22.03.2004, the Tribunal took the view that though the charge against the appellant is not fully proved,

¶6

there is valid suspicion against him, and since the employer i.e., the 2^nd respondent lost confidence, the only relief that can be granted to the appellant is to require the employer to pay some compensation. Accordingly, a sum representing ten months’ salary was directed to be paid.

¶7

Not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed W.P.No.19664 of 2004. Through the order under appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed that the appellant be extended, the benefit of VRS, if it was vogue in the 2^nd respondent Company, as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, and if such a scheme did not exist, the retirement benefits be paid, by treating the date of the award as the date of retirement. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the appellant preferred this Writ Appeal.

¶8

Heard Smt. M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General for the 1^st respondent and Ms. V.Uma Devi, learned counsel, representing Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

The appellant approached the Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the order of discharge. It is, no doubt, true that the criminal case ended in acquittal and the charge of theft of electrodes was held not proved. In the departmental proceedings, however, a different conclusion was arrived at. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal discloses that no serious effort was made to maintain the distinction between the parameters that are relevant in the departmental proceedings, on the one hand, and the criminal proceedings, on the other hand. The Tribunal agreed with the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings. Though some doubt was entertained, as to the proof of the charge in its entirety, it was observed that there was valid suspicion

¶10

against the appellant, in the context of missing of electrodes. A clear observation was made to the effect that the 2^nd respondent lost confidence in the appellant. Obviously for that reason, compensation representing the salary for ten months was awarded.

¶11

The appellant is not able to demonstrate, as to how the findings recorded by the Tribunal are either perverse or without any evidence. It hardly needs any mention that the Tribunal happens to be the final forum on facts and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. It is only when the award is found to be perverse or when the findings are absolutely without evidence, that the possibility may exist to interfere with them, in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge did not notice any such factors, nor do we. The only controversy is about the nature of relief, that is to be granted to the appellant.

¶12

The starting point, in this regard, happens to be the very direction issued by the Tribunal for payment of amount representing ten months’ salary. No basis was indicated for that. The learned Single Judge adopted an objective approach and issued alternative directions. It was directed that in case there existed any voluntary retirement scheme as on the date of the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant be extended the benefit thereof, and if it did not exist, the appellant be treated as having retired from service on the date of award and the retirement benefits be extended.

¶13

Though it was asserted across the Bar that there existed the voluntary retirement scheme as on the date of the award, the same is flatly denied by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. The appellant is not able to substantiate his contention. The inevitable conclusion is that the appellant be extended the retirement benefits, treating the date of the award as the one of superannuation. Correspondence, in this behalf, ensued and, at one point of time, the 2^nd respondent

¶14

offered a sum of Rs.1,05,038/-. The calculation memo submitted by the appellant reflected a higher amount. Left to it, the 2^nd respondent did not prefer any appeal, and it was under obligation to extend the alternative relief of payment of retirement benefits.

¶15

We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeal, directing that

¶16

(a) the 2^nd respondent shall pay the amount representing the retirement benefits to the appellant, duly taking into account, the legal notice, dated 24.02.2014, within six (6) weeks from today, and

¶17

(b) if, after receipt of the amount as directed above, the appellant is of the view that any amount was not paid to him under any particular head, it shall be open to him to make a representation, in that behalf, and as and when such representation is made, the 2^nd respondent shall take appropriate action thereon, within two (2) weeks thereafter.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶20

_____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶21

_______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶22

9^th June, 2014 cbs

¶23

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

¶24

W.A.No.910 of 2014

¶25

9^th June, 2014

¶26

cbs

¶27

**THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM +WRIT APPEAL No.910 of 2014 % 09-06-2014 # B. Peeru Babu .. Applicant Vs. $ The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another .. Respondents

¶28

<GIST: >HEAD NOTE:

¶29

! Counsel for applicant: Smt. M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani ^ Counsel for 1^st respondent : Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General

¶30

^ Counsel for 2^nd respondent : Ms. V.Uma Devi, learned counsel

¶31

representing Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy

¶32

(counsel for R.2)

¶33

? CASES REFERRED : ----

B.Peeru Babu v. The Central Government industrial Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Peeru Babu v. The Central Government industrial Tribunal

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

The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Vs The Ettikoppaka Sugar Factory Employees Union

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Vs Sri Arun Prakash

K.Ravi Shankar S/o Ramulu, Vs The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

M. Sadhu Rao, Vs The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad

S.Subba Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Bikshmaiah Vs Government of A.P.