Allowed

Choppadandi Lachulu v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC19 Feb 2019WP/2475/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of writ petitions by Singareni Collieries Company Limited employees challenging internal circulars. Court directed the company to follow circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 regarding medical fitness and compassionate appointment without insisting on undertakings from employees.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to strictly follow Circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 without insisting for any undertaking from petitioners while considering their cases for Medical Board referral.

Choppadandi Lachulu Vs The Chairman and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.2475, 2568, 2589, 2597, 2611, 2625, 2648, 2781, 2797, 2801, 2803, 2807, 2816, 2822, 2835, 2836, 2840, 2849, 2872, 2878, 3017, 3107, 3111, 3112, 3116, 3122, 3125, 3135, 3138 and 3139 of 2019

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of a common order.

¶5

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are challenging the Memorandum No.CRP/PER/IR/C/081/1102, dated 17.05.2013, and its subsequent Circular vide Ref.No.CRP/PER/IR/C/081/139, dated 21.01.2019, issued by the respondents in restricting the Statutory benefits accrued in favour of the petitioners under the Mines Act, 1952 and its Rules 1955, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently sought a direction to declare that the petitioners are entitled for all the Statutory benefits under the Mines Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶6

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are employees of the respondents - Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Keeping in view their working conditions, certain benefits were provided to the employees of the respondents – Company under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder by way of issuing various Circulars from time to

¶7

AKS, J 2 W.P.No.2475 of 2019 & batch

¶8

time. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that instead of following the Circular dated 09.03.2018 and its subsequent Circular dated 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents in respect of declaring the petitioners medically unfit for discharging their duties and considering the cases of the dependants of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds, the respondents are insisting the petitioners to give an undertaking to the effect that on their medical invalidation, they will not claim any employment to their dependants, which is contrary to the above said Circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents.

¶9

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents – Company submits that the cases of the petitioners will be considered strictly in terms of the Circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents and no undertaking would be insisted while considering the cases of the petitioners for referring them to the Medical Board as to whether the petitioners are medically fit or unfit for continuing in the employment.

¶10

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the respondents to strictly follow the Circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents without insisting for any undertaking from the petitioners while considering their

¶11

AKS, J 3

¶12

W.P.No.2475 of 2019 & batch

¶13

cases for referring them to the Medical Board with regard to their medical fitness for continuing in the employment.

¶14

With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 19.02.2019. Msr

¶17

W.P.No.2475 of 2019 & batch

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶20

¶21

19.02.2019 Msr

Choppadandi Lachulu v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Choppadandi Lachulu v. The Chairman and Managing Director

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

B.Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

E.Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

B. Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Gampa Gunnamma, Vs The State of Telagana

Sadullah Vs The Superintendent

Y.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana