Dismissed

Lothugedda Ram Babu v. The Managing Director

Telangana HC9 Jun 2022WA/365/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the appellant was given reasonable opportunity to attend the domestic enquiry by serving notices, but he failed to participate despite receiving the notice. The termination order was therefore upheld.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Lothugedda Ram Babu Vs The Managing Director — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY,THE^{NINTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSiiCEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT APPEAL^{NO:365OF 2022}

¶6

Writ Appeal^{under Clause15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order} dated^{1 1/03i2022in W P.No 468lof 2014, on the file of the High Court}

¶7

r;,H:"":L,^{Ram Babu. S/o suryaNaravana Naidu' Aoed65 vears occ worked} as^prdof Reader^{in e"naor'riir{i ij;ily'N;;. F;per.5t Hyderlbad,R/o 52-14-34'} Resapuvanipalem,^{Vlsakhapatnam} ...A''ELLANT

¶8

...A''ELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

1 , The Managing^{Director, (A-Division of Ush-odanEnterplises) Rep, by its} Ivlanaqinq Director,^{tenadu.Hyderabad - 5O0 082,and Others} 2. Eenad-u, Rep^{by its Vanuq;-r.,Seethammadhara' VisakhaDatnam - 530 013} J The Additional^{lndustrial, +;i6'""'d;;:Aioiilo"itLabour'court' Hvderabad}

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2022 :^ +r.^ ^ i ,^,, m stcr a ncesnno.^{qtatedstafedin} Petition under^{Sectlon 151 CPCprayingthat in the c rcu} theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedto suspend the^{order passed in W'P'No'4681of 2014 of the Hon'bleCourt' pending} disposal of^{the Writ APPeal'}

¶13

tA NO: 2 OF²⁰²²

¶14

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition, the High court maybe preased to order} to stay all^{further proceedings in lD' No'3 ol 2012 on the file of the Additional} lndustrial^{Tribunal-Cum-Additional Labour Court'Hyderabad' TelanganaState} pending disposal^{of the main writ appeal}

¶15

Counsel^{for the Appellant:SRI' K'J'V'N' PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU}

¶16

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1 & 2: SRI G'V'S' GANESHFOR}

¶17

SRI C.R. SRIDHARAN

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'3: GP FOR LABOUR}

¶19

The Court^{delivered the following:JUDGMENT}

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶23

W,A.No.365 of 2022

¶24

JUDGMENT: r. ri,'i^{rri,,.-n..,,sr,.e} ,tr/iuro,rr?,;irlrdr Si ur.il/

¶25

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No.4681 of 2Ol4 dt.l l-O3-2O22.

¶26

Heard Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶27

It has been contended b,v- the appellant that hc rvzrs appornted as Proof Reader 1n Eenadu Daily Ncs'spaper and n'frilc he n'as discharging his duties as l'roof Rcadr:r, clisciplir.rzrrr, proccedings \vere initiated :rgair-rst tl"re appellant and ttre respondentsmanagement without conducting any enquiry and u'ithout giving arry opportunity, had straight away terminated the services of the appellant vide

¶28

¶29

HC.r & A[S ] W A No 365 ol:021

¶30

proceedings dt.21-08-2004. Aggrieved by the orders of termination, the appellant had^{challenged the sard} termination orders under^{Scction 2-A (21 oithir} Industria-l Disputes Act, 1947^{(for short'the Act, 1947')} before the Additional Industrlal^{Tribunal-cum-} Additional Labour Court^(for short^{'the Tribunal')and} the same was numbered^as I.D.No.3^{of 201,2.}

¶31

The appellant had contended^{that the} Tribunal without appreciating^{any of the contentions} raised by the appellant had^{mechanically dismissed} the said I.D. holding that^{the enquiry which v"as} conducted by the respondents-management^{w'as folrtld} to be legal and valid. Aggrieved^{b1' the orders passed} by the Tribunal in I.D.No.3^{of 2012 dt.O4-O7'2O13. the} appellant had filed^{W.P.No.468 1 of 2Ol4 before this} Court. The appellant had contended^{that the domestic} enquiry was conducted on^{1.6-03-2004 and the} appellant was not^{put on notice by the respondent} informing that the enquiry will^{be conductedon}

¶32

HCJ & AKS..| $ A No.365 o1 2022

¶33

16-03-2004 and as the appellant had not received any notice about the enquiry which was scheduled to be held on 76-03-2004, the appellant could not attend the enquiry and the enquiry officer has conducted ex parte enquiry and held rhat the charge levelled against the appellant as proverl. The appellant had contended that no opportLlnitY u'as given to the appellant by the respondents to pro,'e his innocence in the domestic enquir"v.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.p.No.4681 of 2Ot4 dt.1 1-03-2022 and also orders of the Tribunal in I.D.No.3 of 2OO4 dt.04-O7-2013 and further direct the respondents to re-conduct the enquiry and give an opportunitv to thc appellant to prove his innocence ancl also conseqLrent direction to set aside the tcrmination orders issued by the respondents.

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had contended that three notices were sent to the appellant to the addresses given by the appeilant informing that the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 16-03-2004 and one notice was served on the appellant and two notices were returned un-served. As one of the,notices r.r,'hich was received by the appellar-rt and the appellant \vas also informed by tl-re respondents on 26-02-2004 that Sri Ii.l-lanumantha Rao was appointed as enquirv officer ar-rd the enqtritr' would be held on 16-03-2004. but as the appellant has not attended the enquiry in spite ol receipt of noticc, the enquiry officer had no other option except to conduct enquiry ex parte and held that the charge as proved. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he was not given opportunity to participate in the enquiry and also he was not ar,l.are of the enquiry u'hich was scheduled to be held on 16-03-2004 is totally false and incorrect. Therefore, there are no

¶37

¶38

nrL'r'its in the Wrir Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the respondents had given opportunity to the appellant to participate in the enquiry by serving notice informing him that the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 16-03-2004, but in spite of receipt of such notice, the appellant has not participated in the enquiry. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that no opportunitv was given to him may not be correct and the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge hare rightl-r dismissecl the contentlon of the appeilant tl'rat no opportunit). was given to him to participate in the enquiry.

¶40

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge as the reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant

¶41

HCJ &^AKS..I w A No.365 o1 2022

¶42

¶43

to participate in the domestic^{enquiry by serving notice} in advance and in spite of^{receiptof a notice, the} appellant lailed to^{participatein the enquiry.Everr il} the appellant has not^{availed opportunity given b1z lhc} respondents, this Court^{cannotcome to the rescue of} the appellant. Therefore,^{on this ground also, the Writ} Appeal farls and is accordingly^{dismissed. Pending} miscellaneous applications,^{if any, shall stand closed No}

¶44

costs.

¶45

/ITRUE COPY//

¶46

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR -,/ (,'

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

1 . One CC to^{Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu'.Advocate IqP.UCI} 2. i;; 6c;i;^{ce ioi Liuoui,Hish court tor the state of relansanaat} Hvderabad. [OUT] 3 6'";"bCi; Sii -c. h. s rio n r ta n, Ad vocate to PU cl 4. Two CD^CoPies 5. One SPare^CoPY CHR BS t\ v

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910612022

JUDGMENT

1 .iE SlAt 6
o+ a.
7z
lr) 2 B Jt]L 2022
il
N."n
{.i;-_ r-Q

¶54

W.A.No.365^{of 2022}

¶55

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT APPEAL} WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

@ffiv"

Lothugedda Ram Babu v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lothugedda Ram Babu v. The Managing Director

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

Chervirala Roshini and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

G. Shankaraiah Vs G. Ramulu

Smt. Hoorunnisa Begum Vs Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal

Edla Jithendhar, Vs Government of Ahdhra Pradesh

K Sudarshan Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 11

Kapil Avenues and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shrusti Contech Pvt. Ltd. and another