Partly allowed

The Depot Manager v. S.Ramesh

Telangana HC5 Mar 2020WP/2760/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a dismissed worker. The Court modified the award to grant regularized service with continuity from the date of termination but denied attendant benefits during the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Modified the award to grant regularization with continuity of service from termination date, but denied attendant benefits and barred arrears of salary.

The Depot Manager Vs S.Ramesh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2760 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C^{( Now T.S.R.T.C), GoadavarikhaniDepot,} District Karimnagar.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

S.Ramesh, Ex.Conductor, C-29172,^{S/o. Mogilaiah,age.44 years,R/o}

¶13

Kothakonda Village, Bheemadevarapally^{Mandal, KarimnagarDist.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article²²⁶ oI^{the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue an appropriate writ order^{or direction especiallyone in the natureof writ of} cerliorari calling for the^{records relatingto the impugnedAward dt. 19/03/2019} passed in l.D No. 4212011 on file of the chairman,^{lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour} bourt-Cum-Vl Addl. Dist. and^{SessionsCourt,Godavarikhani and publishedon} 31t}5l2}1g in G.o.Rt.^{No. 204 and quashthe same as being illegal, unjust, perverse} and without^jurisdiction

¶16

IAN O:1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the Highcourt may be pleased to staythe} execution of the Award dt.^{19/03/2019passed in 1.D No.4212011on file of the} chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour^{court-cum-Vl Addl. Dist. and sessions} Court, Godavarikhani, and^{pending disposal of the above writ petition.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIA RAVI BABU(SCFOR TSRTC)}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:^{P GOVINDARAJULU}

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.276O OF 2O2O

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

ORDER I

¶24

Aggrieved by the order of removal from services of the

¶25

respondent, on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities, respondent raised industrial dispute in LD.No.42 of 2Oll. By award dated i9.03.2019, Labour Court declared that the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities was not proved and that the Corporation erred in removing the workman from services. Consequent to the declaration holding that the action was illegally taken, the industrial dispute was partly allowed, set aside the punishment of termination from service and directed the corporation to reinstate the petitioner therein into service with continuity of service and attendanr benefits, but without back-wages. It is also declared that the workman is not entitled to any arrea.rs of salary during the interim period from the date ol his termination till the date of that award. This Writ petition is filed by the Corporation challenging the said award.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for consideration, Iearned counsel for petitioner as well as Iearned counsel for respondent agree for modification of the award passed by the Labour Court restricting the relief granted to re-employment and counting the services for the back period from the date of termination till the date of re-employment towards eligible service for regularization. In view thereof, Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of relief granted as under:

¶27

i) The award is modified by holding that the termination is illegal. Respondent is entitled to compute the past service rendered by him as well as the period of out of employment towards seniority for the purpose of regurarization of service as conductor, but he is not

¶28

entitled for attendant benefits stard closed.

¶29

Pending misce.llaneous petitions shall

¶30

sd/-l .NAGALAKSH MI ASSISTA GISTRAR

\tTo

,TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

l The chairman, rndustriar rribunar-cum-Labour, court-cum-Vr Addr. District and sessions Court, Godavarilt.rani, xai,mna-jJiiiltilt.

¶35

2, S.Ramesh, Ex.Condrrcror, C:_2:1!2,S/o. I\4ogitaiah, R/o. Kothakonda Viilage, B h e e m a d e va ra p a I I y tr4a n d a i, x, ii r] r-ql i rj lry" "' " ",

¶36

One CC to SRt. A RAV| BABU,(SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate tOpUCl

¶37

One CC to SRI. p GOV|NDA RAJULU, Advocate tOpUCl

¶38

Two CD Copies

S\V

HIGH^COURT

DATED:05^t031202O

1 HE STA
o. I
oo 21 PPR 2020 f.)

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.2760^{of 2020}

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE^WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

<br><)

The Depot Manager v. S.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager v. S.Ramesh

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

Sri Guvva Anjaneyulu, Ex- Estates Officer Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

P. Jai Kishan, Vs The District Collector (P.W)

S. Vamshi Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Gownicadi Venkateswar Vs Tsrtc and 5 others

Kummari Krishna Murthy Vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission (Tspsc)

Smt.Shaik , Patan Seema Sulthana Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others