Dismissed

M.D. Apsrtc, Hyd.and 2 Ors. v. K. Nagendrachari and Ano

Telangana HC7 Sept 2021WP/22948/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Corporation's writ petition as it had reinstated and discharged the workman. It also dismissed the workman's writ petition for back wages, noting the Labour Court provided cogent reasons for the denial, while directing payment of retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Corporation to pay retirement benefits to the workman within a reasonable time if not already paid.

M.D. Apsrtc, Hyd.and 2 Ors. Vs K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS: 22948 OF 2010 & 21335 OF²⁰¹¹

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22948 OF 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing^Director

¶9

The Regional lvlanager^(SR), APSRTC, JBS,^{Secunderabad.}

¶10

3, The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot,^{Kukatpally,Hyderabad.}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

I Sri. K. Nagendrachari^(KN Chari) S/o.^{Late Laxmanachari Conductor} E.No,201626 Fl/o. E.W.S. 9/15, Bharatnagar Colony,^Hyderabad-18

¶14

2 The Addl. lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.^{Labour Court, Hyderabad, rep.by its} Presiding Officer.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleasedto} issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{especiallyone in the natureof writ of} certiorari calling for the records^{relating to the impugned Award dated 22.09.2009in} l.D.No.B/2009, Addl. lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.^{LabourCourt,Hyderabad} published in G.O.Rt.No.13, Labour Employment Training and^{Factories(LAB-l)} Department dated 04.01 .2010 allowing the^{petition in part and directingthe} petitioners herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service together^{with continuity} of service, without back wages and attendant^{benefits and quash the same as being} bad, illegal, without .jurisdiction and in valid

¶17

WPMP. No: 29294 OF 201!

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto order stay of} execution of Award dated 22.09.2009^made in^{l.D.No.8/2009'Addl,lndustrial} Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad^published on^04.01.2010in G.O.Rt.No.13, Labour Employment Training and^{Factories(LAB-I) Department except} reinstatement of the l st respondent into service^{pendingdisposal of the writ petition}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. K MADHAVA^{REDDY, SC FORAPSRTC}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl.^{V NARASIMHAGOUD}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: GP^{FOR LABOUR}

¶22

WP NO: 21335 OF 2011

¶23

Between:

¶24

K. NAGENDRA CHARY (K.N. Chary), S/o. Late^{K. Laxmana Chary Conductor,} E.No. 201626 Fl/o. E.W.S.^- 915, Bharath Nagar Colony,^Hyderabad.

¶25

..,PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

1 APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its^{ManagingDirector.}

¶28

2 The Regional Manager^(SR), APSRTC, JBS,^{Secunderabad.}

¶29

3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot,^{Kukatpally, Hyderalrad.}

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayirrgthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{ma)/be pleased to} issue an appropriate writ or direction^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^nature of^{WRIT OF} CERTIORARI,^quash the impugned award dated 22-09-2009^made ir^{l.D. No. 8 of} 2009, published on 20-01-2010 on the file of the Addl. lndustrial^{Tribunal cum Addl.} Labour Court, Hyderabad, in so far as denying the^petitioner's the^{attendantbenefits} and back wages as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, in violation of Art. 14,^'16 & 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the^{petitionerpray} this Hon'ble Court to^direct the respondents to^grant the attendant benefits along with all^{conseqr:entialbenefits} including back wages in the interest of^justice and fair^play.

¶32

WPMP. NO: 25968 OF 2011

¶33

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 fix an early date for its disposal of above writ petition in the interest of^justice and fair^play.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. V NARASIMHA GOUD

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. C SUNILKUMAR REDDY, SC FOR APSRTC

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} WRIT PETITI ON^{Nos.22948 of 2010and21335 of 2011} COMMON ORDER:

¶38

Both these writ^{petitions are being heard anddisposedby a} corrmon order^{as the award impugnedin both these writ petitionsis} the same.

¶39

Writ Petition^{No.21335of 2011 is filed by the workman} seeking to^{quash the awarddated22'9'2009 madein I'D'No'8 of} 200gonthefileoftheAdditionallndustrialTribunal.cumAdditional Labour^{Court, Hyderabad,insofar as denyinghirn the} attendant benefits^{and back wages'}

¶40

3.WritPetitionNo.22g48of2010isfiledbytheCorporation challenging^{the awarddated 22'g} '2009^{made in I'D'No'8 of 2009 on} the file of the^{AdditionalIndustrialTribunal-cum-AdditionalLabour} Court, Hyderabad,^{in setting aside the terminationorderdated} 09.5.2008.

¶41

Leamed Standing^{Counsel appearingfor the Corporation} contended^{that in complianceof the orderspassed by the Labour} court in^{the aforesaidI.D., the workmanwas already reinstatedinto} service and he^{also retired ilorn service on attainingthe age of} superannuation^{on 3 I .7.201 9'}

¶42

¶43

In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the workman was reinstated into service in compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.8 of 2009 and therefore, Writ Petition No.22948 of 2010 filed by the Corporation is dismissed as the Corporation has complied with the award passed by the Labour Cour.t.

¶44

Insofar as W.P.No.21335 of 2011 filed by the workman seeking the back wages, the Labour Coun has given cogent reasons for denying the grant of back wages to the workman and rightly rejected the grant of back wages to the workman in exercise of its power under Section 1 1(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and accordingly, W.p.No.2 1335 of 201 1 is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Corporation shall pay the retirement benefits to the workman within a reasonable period of time, if not already paid. No costs.

¶45

1 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶46

stand closed.

¶47

SD/. K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// h,/ SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

1 The Addl. lndustrial^{Tribunal-cum-AddlLabour Court' Hyderabad'rep by its} Presiding Officer.

¶50

The Man"aging^{Director, APSRTC,Mu,sh9-elabird' Hyderabad'} 5. fne negionaiManager(SR),^{APSRT-C'JBS' Secunderabad'}

¶51

The Depot^{Manager,APSRIC,Bus Depot'Kuka-tpally'Hyderabad'} s. onl ci^{to Sri. K Madhava Reddv, SC for APSRTCtoPucl} 6. O;" CC^{to Sri. V. Narasimha Goud, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶52

Two CCs^{to GP to, r-,no,', High Courtfor the State of Telangana,[oUT]} 8. Two CD^CoPies' M

PM )V

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710912021

<br>\t{E SIAIE
o+
cJ
a,)
L) 05 0clz$?l .L

¶57

COMMON ORDER

¶58

WP.Nos.22948 of 2010 & 21335 of 2011

¶59

Disposing of the WP's Without costs.

¶60

M.D. Apsrtc, Hyd.and 2 Ors. v. K. Nagendrachari and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.D. Apsrtc, Hyd.and 2 Ors. v. K. Nagendrachari and Ano

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

Dr.K.Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Vs Un-Aided Christian Professional Colleges

Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy, Vs State Of Telangana

Kakatiya University Warangal Dist Vs I.T.C.L.Court Warangal Dist and Another

Ponnam Akhila, Vs The State of Telangana

Kakatiya University , Warangal Vs Industriala Tribunal Cum Labour Court and Another