Dismissed

The Chairma, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Telangana HC15 Nov 2018WP/20291/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash a Labour Court order that reinstated a workman dismissed for disciplinary reasons. The court held that the Labour Court rightly applied the proportionality theory to set aside the dismissal and that no grave irregularity existed to warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking certiorari and quashing of the Labour Court's order was dismissed.

The Chairma, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20291 of 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records related to and connected with the orders passed in L.C.I.D. Case No.106 of 2007, dated 17.01.2010 and quash or set aside the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, perverse and against to the Statutory Rules.

¶5

It has been contended by the petitioners that the 2^nd respondentworkman was appointed on compassionate grounds on 24.07.1998. After appointment of the 2^nd respondent-workman, it was noticed that he was frequently absenting himself from duties and the petitioners have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 2^nd respondent-workman. After conducting disciplinary inquiry, the petitioners have dismissed the 2^nd respondent-workman vide proceedings dated 05.07.2002 and thereafter, 2^nd respondent-workman preferred appeal and the appellate Court also rejected the appeal on 30.08.2002. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent-workman has filed a review and the review was also dismissed on 27.04.2002. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent-workman has filed I.D.No.106 of 2007 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, vide orders dated 17.01.2010, had allowed the I.D. preferred by the 2^nd respondent-workman and set aside the orders of dismissal and directed the petitioners to reinstate the 2^nd respondentworkman within two months. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶6

AKS, J 2 W.P.No.20291 of 2011

¶7

It has been contended by the learned Standing Counsel for petitioners that the Labour Court, without appreciating any of the contentions raised before it, has mechanically allowed the I.D. preferred by the 2^nd respondent-workman and the disciplinary authority has not committed any irregularity in imposing the punishment of dismissal for the proven charge in the inquiry and contend that the Labour Court, without appreciating the evidence, has erroneously allowed the I.D. preferred by the 2^nd respondent-workman. Counsel for petitioners further contend that the petitioners pleaded before the Labour Court that the 2^nd respondent has indulged in similar misconduct on three previous occasions and the petitioners have taken a lenient view and imposed some minor punishments, and inspite of imposing minor punishments, the 2^nd respondent has not mended his ways and he continued to remain unauthorised absence. Left with no option, petitioners have imposed the major punishment of dismissal after giving opportunity and conducting detailed inquiry.

¶8

Counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent-workman has contended that the Labour Court has rightly passed orders in his favour by applying proportionality theory. It was alleged that the 2^nd respondent-workman was absent only for 22 days and the petitioners have imposed the punishment of dismissal which is shockingly disproportionate. The disciplinary authority has also noted the fact that the 2^nd respondentworkman was appointed on compassionate ground. Counsel for 2^nd respondent-workman further contended that no illegality or irregularity

¶9

AKS, J 3 W.P.No.20291 of 2011

¶10

has been pointed by the petitioners so as to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court.

¶11

This Court, having considered the contentions raised by both the parties, is of the considered view that the Labour Court has rightly passed orders in favour of 2^nd respondent-workman in exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by applying the proportionality theory. Until and unless grave irregularity has been pointed out in the orders passed by the Labour Court, this Court cannot interfere with the same.

¶12

In view of the above, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 15^th November 2018 ajr

The Chairma, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairma, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

M. Shankaraiah, Sangareddy, Medak Dist. Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyd.

Joint Action Committee, Nellore Vs the Apsrtc, Nellore

S.K.Mastan Vs the Regional Manager

D.M.,Apsrtc,Parvathipuram Vs G.Gowri Shankar Rao,Parvathipuramandanr

Naseem Sultana Vs Chief Executive Officer Wakf Board

Mulla Hasan Ali Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, a.P.S.D.C.Ltd