Dismissed

M/S.Care Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., Hyd., v. Industrial Tribunal-Ii, Hyd.,and Another

Telangana HC26 Nov 2018WP/4052/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed against a Labour Court award directing reinstatement of a terminated employee. The court held that absent stated illegality or irregularity in the award, judicial interference is not permitted under Section 11-A.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions remain closed.

M/S.Care Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., Hyd… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 4052 of 2004

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the record relating to and connected with I.D.No.89 of 2002 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the award dated 10.09.2003 passed therein holding it as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard learned standing counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

It has been contended by the petitioner corporation that the 2^nd respondent joined as medical transcription trainee on 27.04.1998. After completion of training, petitioner company absorbed the 2^nd respondent as regular employee. While so, without assigning any reason, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting enquiry, the petitioner company terminated the services of the 2^nd respondent on 31.12.1999. Challenging the said order, 2^nd respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.89 of 2002 on the file of the 1^st respondent – Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court without properly appreciating any of the contentions raised by the corporation, passed an award dated 10.09.2003 setting aside the order of removal and directing the corporation to reinstate the 2^nd respondent into service with continuity of service and 50% of back wages with costs. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has contended that the Labour Court has rightly passed the award in hes favour and, therefore, no interference is called for.

¶8

¶9

This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that when once the Labour Court had exercised the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, unless and until any illegality or irregularity is pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the petitioners’ corporation in the award passed by the Labour Court, this Court cannot interfere with the award. There are no merits in the writ petition.

¶10

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶11

_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
26 th November, 2018
dv

M/S.Care Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., Hyd., v. Industrial Tribunal-Ii, Hyd.,and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Care Technologies India Pvt.Ltd., Hyd., v. Industrial Tribunal-Ii, Hyd.,and Another

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

Sri. Sk. Muneer Basha, Vs the Managing Director

B.G.Rajeswar Vs the Presiding Officer, Addl.Labour Court-Cum-Addl.Indl.,Hyd.

Sidda Gattaiah, S/O Rajamallu Vs the Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.

G.Satyanarayana, Krishna District Vs Apsrtc by Chief Traffic Manager,Vijayawada.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs the Controlling Authority, Visakhapatnam and Others

K.Satyanarayana Goud Vs the Depot Manager, Apsrtc, and Anr.