Dismissed

K.Muttaiah S/o Late (Sri) Pochaiah v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board

Telangana HC10 Oct 2014WP/30162/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to extend service retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The Court held that the definition of a 'workman' depends on specific duties, evidence, and pleadings. Without these, the Court cannot determine if the petitioner qualifies as a workman and thus remitted the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.

K.Muttaiah S/o Late (Sri) Pochaiah Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.30162 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 9.9.2014, in O.A.No.3725 of 2014 (dealt in O.A.No.7644 of 2012 and batch) on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to set aside Circular Memo, dated 31.12.2013, issued by respondent No.3 seeking him to retire after attaining the age of 58 years on 30.6.2014 and consequently, to direct the respondents to continue him in service upto the age of 60 years.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Application. Challenging the same, applicant filed the present writ petition.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant contended that as per Explanation-I of Service Regulation 13.3 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (for short, “HMWS&SB”), the word “Workman” means a highly skilled, skilled or semi skilled or unskilled worker in the establishment of the Board; that the post of Technician Grade-II is defined as “Workman” and hence, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of retiring from service on attaining the age of 60 years and not 58 years. He placed reliance on an order, dated 23.7.1990, in W.P.No.15176 of 1988 of this Court wherein it is held at para No.5 as under:

¶9

“….. The learned Judge referred to and followed another judgment of this Court in Shaik Ali v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1974(1) A.L.T.93 in coming to the conclusion. Jeevan Reddy J., in the said case came to the conclusion that the duties of the Vehicle Inspector are predominantly manual in nature and, therefore, he answers the description of artisan and held that he was entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.”

¶10

Basing on the above decision, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the duty of Technician Grade-II is predominantly manual in nature, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶11

5. In support of his contention, he also relied upon an order, dated 28.11.2001, in W.P.No.8636 of 1998 and batch. No ratio has been laid down in that writ petition and simply, it was disposed of in terms of the order, dated 21.11.2001, in W.P.No.20562 of 1998. Copy of the said order has not been made available to this Court to know whether the facts of that case are applicable to the facts of the present case or not. Hence, it is not applicable.

¶12

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that the issue in question is squarely covered by the order, dated 01.8.2014, in W.P.Nos.21649 and 21650 of 2014 of this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶13

7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment, dated 15.9.2014, in W.A.No.1213 of 2014 of this Court in support of his contentions. That decision has no application to the facts of the present case because the petitioners therein filed I.D.Nos.43 to 55, 80 to 84 of 2002 and 231 of 2003 before Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. The issue therein was totally based on the evidence adduced by the parties. Some of those I.Ds. were challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing W.P.Nos.6258, 6260, 6262, 6263, 6264, 6265, 6438, 7309, 7587 and 7588 of 2005 and the same were dismissed vide order, dated

¶14

7.2.2011. Against that order, W.A.No.1213 of 2014 came to be filed. The ratio laid down in the said writ appeal has no application to the facts of the present case because admittedly, the petitioner herein did not approach the Industrial Tribunal to determine as to whether he comes within the meaning of “Workman”, as defined under the HMWS&SB Service Regulations, or not. Service Regulation No.13 of HMWS&SB reads as under:

¶15

“13. Age of Superannuation:

¶16

13.1……….

¶17

13.2………

¶18

13.3. Every workman shall ordinarily be retained in service upto the age of sixty years:

¶19

Provided that any workman may be required to retire at any time after attaining the age of fifty-five years after being given one month’s notice, or one month’s pay in lieu thereof, on the ground of impaired health or of being negligent or inefficient in the discharge of duties.

¶20

Provided further that a workman may also retire at any time after attaining the age of fifty-five years by giving one month’s notice in writing.”

¶21

Explanation-I to Service Regulation 13 provides that the word “Workman” means a highly skilled, skilled or semi-skilled or unskilled worker in the establishment of the Board. Therefore, unless necessary pleading and evidence are let in with regard to the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner, it is not possible either for this Court or the Tribunal to decide as to whether the petitioner comes within the meaning of “Workman” or not. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed the petitioner to approach the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to ventilate his grievance and hence, that order needs no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶23

petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶24

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶25

JUSTICE ANIS Date: 10.10.2014 AMD

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶27

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS