Partly allowed

The Director (Personnel, Administration and Welfare) v. Sri. T.Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC16 Nov 2021WA/597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges an order affecting a Singareni Collieries Company Limited executive's service records and additional costs. The court addressed the procedural defect regarding the appellants' non-hearing.

What did the court decide?

Adverse entry order against respondents 1 and 3 set aside; costs awarded to employee maintained as employee is low-paid.

The Director (Personnel, Administration… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

{

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARM,A AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶7

WRIT AP PEAL NO: 557 OF 2021

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred against the order dated 07-07-2021 passed in WP No. 46449 of 2018 and passon the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Director (Personnel, Administration and Welfare), The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem Collieries, Kothagudem.

¶11

The General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri Area, Mancherial District.

¶12

The Chief Medical Officer, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Main Hospital, Kothagudem Bhadradri Kothagudem District(TS).

¶13

..,APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 TO 3

¶14

AND

¶15

Sri. T.Krishna Murthy, S/o.T.V.Narsaiah, (EC No.2385600), Aged 43 years, Occ. Badli Filler, Shanthi Khani Mine, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, I\rland amarri Area, Fl/o.Q. No. DCH-38, Power House Colony, Godavarikhan i, Peddapalli Dist.(TS).

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 07-07-2021 passed in WP No. 46449 of 2018 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants:SRl. J SREENIVASA RAO, SG FOR SINGARENI G

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. PUSHPINDER KAUR

¶21

The Court delivered the following:

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH^{CHANDRASHARMA'} AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER^REDDY

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.597 of 2O2l

¶27

JUDGMENT: (Per tle Hon'ble the Chr',y'Juslice Satish C handr(srarmal

¶28

The preser-rt writ appeal is arising out of order dated 07.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.l of 2Ol9 inland W.P.No.46449 of 2018 and C.C.No.257 of 2Ol9 by the learned Single Judge.

¶29

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/employee before this Court was appointed as a Badli Filler on 15.05.2000. A Charge sheet u,as issued on 10.01.2003 and finally he was terminated on 19.07 .2004. He raised an industrial dispute being aggrieved by the order of dismissal and an award was passed by the Labour Court on 04.04.2013 imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. A direction was also issued to reinstate the workman within one month. He is also entitled to receive back wages @ 25% of his regular wage. Thereafter, the award dated 04.04.2013 was challenged by the employer by filing W.P.No.35708 of 2013 and the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award on 24.09.2014 and as per the award, the workman was entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service subject to medical fitness by Company Medical Board. An order was issued on 27.11.2004 appointing the employee as Badli Coal Filler afresh subject to fitness in the medical examination for one year on trial basis with a review of every three months. The workman was again terminated,^.,i

{

by the employer on 22.03.20i6 and in those circumstances, tre came up before this Court. The iearned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the employer has not only violated the terms,and conditions of the Lok Adaiat award on three occasions, but all possible attempts were made to discontinue the employee. In those circumstances, the writ petition has been allowed with costs of Rs.50,000/- and a observation has also been made to Singareni Collieries Company Limited to record adverse entry in service records of respondent Nos.1 and 3 for their conduct.

¶35

Undisputedly, respondent Nos.1 and 3, u'ho were not heard before passing such an order, in respect of recording of adverse entry in the service records, no notice of any kind was issued to them seeking an explanation and in the r.,,,rit petition a common reply was filed on behalf of management. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are not impleaded by name in the writ petition and therefore, to the extent the order has been passed directing recording of adverse entry in respect of respondents in the service records deserves to be set aside.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his prayer only in respect of recording of adverse entry in the sen'ice^records as well as imposition of costs.

¶37

So far as imposition of costs is concerned, the workman is litigating right from 2014. He was forced to approach this^Court again and again by filing writ petitions and a contempt^{petition. He} is certainly a low paid employee and has been subjected^to harassment as reflected from the order^{passed by the learned}

¶38

)

¶39

Single Judge and therefore, to the extent the costs have been imposed, this Court does not find any reason to lnterfere with awarding of costs.

¶40

The writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

¶42

shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

SD/.C.V.MALLIKARJ^{U NA VARMA} DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// G"

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri.^{J Sreenivasa Rao, SC for singareni collieries companyLimited} loPUcl

¶48

bne CC to Sri.^{PushpinderKaur,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD CoPies.

¶50

One Spare^CoPY.

PIM

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112021

JUDGMENT

1 tt s TA
oo 2 B N0\I?{'!?l .o
'it
*

¶57

WA.No.597 ol 2021

¶58

Disposing of the WA Without costs.

¶59

u
)nV

The Director (Personnel, Administration and Welfare) v. Sri. T.Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director (Personnel, Administration and Welfare) v. Sri. T.Krishna Murthy

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

Piramal Pharma Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Telangana State Wakf Board Vs Kiran Konijeti and 5 others

Telangana State Wakf Board Vs Shanthi Vasudevan

Kondareddy Vishnumurthy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Mayur Mundra Vs State of Telangana

The State of Telangana and 8 Others Vs M/s Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd.