Dismissed

Depot Mgr., Apsrtc., Adilabad Dist v. Presiding Offr., Indl Tribunal-Cum-Lc., K.Nagar and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2021WP/10692/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court of Telangana examined a challenge to a Labour Court award reinstating a workman with 10% back wages. The Court held the award was correct under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari refused; impugned award of the Labour Court stands maintained; petition dismissed without costs.

Depot Mgr., Apsrtc., Adilabad Dist Vs Presiding… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 10692 OF^{201 2}

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Depot Manager, APSRTC., lvlancherial Depot, Adilabad District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

I The lndustrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani,^{rep by its Presiding} Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶11

2 lvlohammad lqbal Ahmed Khan, S/o Md.^{Amjad Khan, E.99925, Ex-Conductorof} Jagitial, H.No.2-7-590, besides lndian^{Overseas Bank Mukarrampura,} Karimnaga r

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedto} issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,^{especiallyin the nature of writ of} certiorari, calling for the records^relating to^{the impugnedorder dt.24-08-2011 in} l.D.No.7712002 0n the file of the Labour court,^{Godavarikhani and set asidethe same} as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A^{RAVIBABU, SC FORTSRTC}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 1: GP FOR LABOUR}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRl.^{G. RAVI MOHAN}

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDI(T]IVIAR SHAVIl,I}

¶19

WRIT PETITION No'r0692^{of :1012}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed for^{the following substantivereliel:}

¶22

"...to issue an appropriate writ order or^{rlirectiotlmore} particularly one in the nature of Writ of Cerliorari^{calling for the} records relating to the impugned^{orderdrLted24.08.201I in} I.D.No.77i2002 on the file of^the l.abour^{Court.( iodavarikhani.} and set aside the same^as illegal^{andarbitrary."}

¶23

Heard Sri A.Ravi Babu, Iearned Standing^{Counselappearing} for the petitioner and Sri G.Ravi^{Mohan, learned counsel appearing} for respondent No.2-workman.

¶24

It has been contended by the^{petitioner thrtt respondenl l"lo.2} was working as a driver and for the alleged^{irlcgtrlarities in cash, the} disciplinary authority had initiated^disciplinary lfoceedings^algrtirtst him and after conducting a detailed^{enquiry, the disciplinrrry} authority has ipposed a major^penaity of^{rernoval frotnserviceon} 25.6.2002 and aggrieved by the same,^{respondentNo.2 preferredan} appeal and the same was rejected^{and later, hc llled t.D.No.77of} 2002 under Section 2-A(2) of the^{Industrial l)isptrtcs Actbefcrrt: the} Labour Court.

¶25

Learned Standing Counsel for the^{petitioncrcontended that the} Labour Court was^pleased to allow the said^{1.D. prefereclby} respondent No.2-workman and was^pleased to^{sel aside the ordr:rof}

¶26

AKS, J W.P.No.l0692 ol 20l2

¶27

¶28

removal and directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.2 herein into service with continuity of service with all^atten dant benefits and granted 10Yo of back wages. Challenging the same,^the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in para 30 of the impugned award passed by the Labour Cou(, the Labour Court has given a finding that^{respondentNo.2 is not} entitled to full back wages, however, while^{granting the relief, the} Labour Couft was pleased to^granted 10% of^{back wages,whichis} running contrary to the findings recorded in^{para 30 of the impugned} award.

¶30

Leamed counsel for respondent No.2-workman contended^that the Labour Courl has rightly passed the impugned^{award and,though} it denied full back wages, by considering the total^{facts of the case, it} has restricted the back wages only to l0o/o^{in exerciseof its power} under Section 11(a) of the Industrial^{Disputes Act and therefore,} there are no merits in this writ^petition and^{no interference is called} for by this Courl in the impugned award^passed by^{the Labour Courl} and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

7 , This Court, having regard to the rival submissions^madeby leamed counsel for both the parties, is of the considered^{view that} the Labour Coufi has rightly^passed the^{impugnedaward dated} 24.8.2007 in I.D.No.77 of 2002 in exercise of^{its poweruntler}

¶32

AKS, J W.P.No.l0692 ol 20l2

¶33

¶34

Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes^{Act and therefore,this Court}

¶35

is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award^{passed by the}

¶36

Labour Court.

¶37

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶38

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions^pending,i f any, shall

¶39

stand dismissed.

¶40

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Presiding officer,^{lndustrial Tribunal-cum- Labour court, Godavarikhani,} Godavarikhani, Karimnagar^{District. (with records if any)}

¶45

One CC to Sri. A Ravi^{Babu, SC for TSRTC} [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to Sri.G.^{Ravi Mohan, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to GP^{for Labour,HighCourt for the State of TelaLngana [OUT]}

¶48

Two CD CoPies.

¶49

One Spare CoPY.

(fPM

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10912021

ORDER

1 e .rA tq,
oo:) 21sEP$ll
^1r?

¶55

WP.No.10692 of 2012

¶56

Dismissing the WP Without costs.

¶57

Depot Mgr., Apsrtc., Adilabad Dist v. Presiding Offr., Indl Tribunal-Cum-Lc., K.Nagar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Depot Mgr., Apsrtc., Adilabad Dist v. Presiding Offr., Indl Tribunal-Cum-Lc., K.Nagar and Anr.

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

The Depot Manager, Warangal Vs the Presiding Officer, Warangal and Another

C Venkat Reddy, Hyderabad Vs Dgm, M/S.Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd., Visakhapatnam and 2

The Managing Director and Another, Vs G. Bala Raju and Another

Md.Yakub Ali Vs Apsrtc., Rep. by its Vc and MD

Jashin Bansal, Vs The Union of India

Md.Yakub Ali, S/o. Ashraf Ali Vs The Regional Manager