Dismissed

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd. v. Sri.D.Sukumar, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC14 Sept 2021WP/5920/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition seeking to quash a Labour Court Award that reinstated a dismissed employee without awarding back wages. The Court held the Labour Court correctly exercised its powers, dismissed the petition, and held the writs closed and dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; matters stood closed; no costs.

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE

¶2

;; "^{;t#i,-5,ifiri,],i}

¶3

,ELAN GA NA

¶4

M B E R ,,.. OiIi Jli 5?3XTE'ilIJ f;f I^r,H?JE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVIL]

¶7

Between:

¶8

WRIT P ETITION NO: 5920 O F 2008

¶9

The Depot Manager, ApSRTC, l\riushirabad Depot, Hyderabad.

¶10

AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

sri D. Sukumar S/o.rate Devaputra R/o.MrG-r, Brock-18, FIat No.B, ApHB corony, Baghlingampally, Hvderabad.'

¶13

The Labour Court-|,-A.p., Hyderabad,, rep. by its presiding Off,."f..*.rroro="r,

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 15.09.2006 made in 1.D.No.205/2004, Labour Court.l, Hyderabad published on 07.12.2006 in G.O.Rt.No.2389, dated 13.'1^'1 .2006 allowing the petition in part and directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service together with continuity of service and other attendant benefits but without back wages; and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without^jurisdiction and invalid and^pass such other order or orders in the interest of^justice,

¶15

WPMP. NO: 7711 OF 2008

¶16

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 order stay of} execution of award dated 15.09,2006^{made in l. D. No.205/2004, Labour Court.l,} Hyderabad published on 07.12.2006 in G.O.Rt.No.2389,^{dated '13.'11 .2006 exceptin} regard to reinstatement,^pending disposal^{of the Writ Petitionandpass such other} order or orders in the interest of^justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAMBHAM^{MADHAVA REDDY}

¶18

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SMT.^{K. UDAYASRI}

¶19

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

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

¶22

t i

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI} W P N 2 2

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

When the mcrtter^{is token up for heoring' leorned counsel} oppeoring for^{the p'=tiiioner hod contended thol ihe l'1 respondent} wos employed os r conduclor^{with the petitioner's Corporotion} ond the disciplinory ouihority^{hod initioteddisciplinoryproceedings} ogoinst the lsr respondenl on the olleged^{cosh ond licket} irregulorlties ond the disciplinory outhority, ofter conducling o detoiled enquiry, h cs imposed punishment of removol vide order doted 28.10.2003. lhereofter, the 1,1 respondeni hos unsuccessfully preferred oppeol crnd revision ond loter filed 1.D.No.205 of 2004 before the Lobour Courl under Section 2-A(21 of the lndustriol Disputes Act.

¶26

Leorned cour sel oppeoring for the petitioner hod contended thol the Lobour C<>url hod ollowed the l.D. preferred by lhe ist respondent vide onler doted 15.09.2006 ond directed thot lhe tst respondent be reinsloted into service with continuity of service with oll ottendont benef its, but without bock woges. Chollenging the some, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

Leorned counsel oppeoring for the petilioner hod contended thot the Lobour Co.lrt hoving held thot the enquiry wos volid, the Lobour Courl ough" not to hove se1 oside lhe order of removol. Therefore, oppropri,lte orders be possed in the writ petition by setting oside the order possed in l.D.No.2O5 of 2004 doled 15.0?.2006.

¶28

¶29

Leorned counsel oppeoring for the lsr respondeni hod Contended thol^pursuont lo the order possed by lhe Lobour Cour!, the^petitioner hos reinstoied the lst respondent^into service.^The Lobour Couri hos righlly exercised^{its power under Section1l-A of} the l.D.Act ond hos^{given cogentreqsons while portly ollowingthe} l.D.^preferred by^{the lsirespondent. Therefore,thereore no meritsin} lhe writ^{petition ond the someis lioble to be dismissed'}

¶30

This Court,^{hoving considered the rivol submissionsof leorned} counsel^{for the porties, is of the consideredview thol ihe Lobour} Court^{hos righlly possedorders in fovour of the lsrrespondent ond} the Lobour^{court hosgivencogent reosonswhile portly ollowing the} l.D.^{preferredby ihe lsirespondent ond the LobourCourthos olso} given reosons^{for denying lhe bock woges'Since the petitioner hos} olreody^{reinstotedihe 1sl respondentinlo service' this Couriis of the} considered^{view thot lhe LobourCourlhos rightly possedordersin} fovour of^{the1st respondenl in exercise of iis power under Section} I l-A of^{the l.D'Act' Therefore'this Couri is not inclin6d lo entertoln} the wril Peiition'

¶31

missed.^{No cosis'} Accordingly,^{the writ petiiion is dis} f ony,^{sholl stond closed-'} Pending^{miscellone-o.uspetitions'i} SDI.^{K. ONESIM} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// 6" SECTION^OFFICER

¶32

" i i;;ggiffi^{nltrmt"'ti";i} MBC TP

Sireua?ganu'lour

HIGH COURT^.'.

DATED: 1410912021

mE5
/i
l,;
/5
Ic: 270sT20?1 :I
\e.,
It

¶38

ORDER

¶39

WP.No.5920 ot 2008

¶40

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶41

WITHOUT COSTS to

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd. v. Sri.D.Sukumar, Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd. v. Sri.D.Sukumar, Hyd and Another

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

T.Venkateswarlu Vs the Vice Chairman and Managing Director

P. Gnanesh and 2 Others Vs the A.P. Genco., Rep Byits Chief Endineer and 3 Others

M.a.Quadar,Nizamabad Dist Vs the Chairmanand Managing Director,Warangal and 2 Others

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

B. Prabhakara Reddy, Hyd. Vs A.P. Scheduled Caste , Hyd.

Bookya Narsingh, Karimnagar District Vs the Regional Manager,Apsrtc,Karimnagar Region and Another