Allowed

Mohd. Ghani, v. The Depot Manager

Telangana HC14 Feb 2022WA/698/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant driver was removed for alleged theft. Industrial Tribunal reinstated him allowing back wages. High Court quashed the removal. Tribunal reinstated him. Appellant filed Writ Appeal challenging Single Judge's order. Bomb appeal allowed quashing of the removal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; Impugned order of Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 32910/1998 is set aside; Matters pending miscellaneous applications closed

Mohd. Ghani, Vs The Depot Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

N4ONDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 69 8 0F 2007

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the^{order dated 18-7-2007 in} W.P. NO. 32910/1998 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Iv'1ohd. Ghani, S/o.Mahabub Ali, E.NO. 304503,^{DRIVER,Fl/o. H.No.1-77'} Salehnagar, Karimnagar Mandal and^District.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh^{State RoadTransport Corporation'} Karrmnagar I Depot. Kaflmnagar

¶13

2 The Chairman. lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour^{Court, Godavarikhani.}

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

A.N : 1 OF 2015 MP. NO:1059 OF 0

¶16

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that^{in thecircumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct} the Respondent Corporation to^{extend further benefits to which an employee retired} on attaining the age of superannuation^{is eligible and direct the Respondents} Corporalion not to recover from^{me half of the back wages awarded by theLabour} Court and the Petitioner^{was permitted to withdraw and he undertakesto forego the} balance half of the back wages^{awardedby the Labour Courtand unpaidto the} Petitioner and he will not make any claim^{in fulure in this regard.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 200^(WAMP. NO:^{1408 OF2007</sup>}

¶18

Petition under Section¹ 5'l CPC^praying that^{in thecircumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} suspend the order of the^{learned Single Judge in WPNo. 32910/1998 dated 18-7-} 2OO7^pending disposal^{of the Writ Appeal.}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Appellant(s) : SMT K UDAYASRI} Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1: SRI A RAVIBABU'SCFORAPSRTC}

¶20

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo 2 : GP FORLABOUR}

¶21

The Court^{delivered the following:JUDGMENT}

¶22

HON'BLE THD CH^{IEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶23

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶24

W.A.No.698 of^2OO7

¶25

JUDGMENT: //'].,.lIl,,,^{i)i. .ii} ",1s/,.e^{/1i/ti'rr,r dL'ra/srro'iri/}

¶26

This Writ Appeal^{is filed aggrieved by the orders} passed in W.P.No.3291O^{of 1998 dt.l-O7-2OO7'}

¶27

Heard Smt.^{K,Udaya Sri, learned counsei for} the^{petitioner, Sri A.RaviBabu, learned counsel for the} 1"t respondent^{and the learned Government Pleader for} Labour appearing^{for the 2"d respondent'}

¶28

It has been^{contendedby the appellant that he} was initially^{appointed as a driverin the 1"t respondent} corporation^{in July 1986 and he has been discharging} his duties with^{the utmostsatisfactionof his superiors} and everyone^{concerned. It has beenfurthercontended} by the appellant^{that the disciplinary authority had} initiated disciplinary^{proceedings on the alleged ground} that he has^{committedtheft of Rs' 10'000/- from a} passenger while discharging^{his dutiesas a driver' The} disciplinary^{authority,in a'11, has framed two articles of} charges in^{the charge memo dt'24-O3-1994' The} appellant^{has submitteddetailedexplanation denying the} charges.^{The discipiinary authoritynot being satisfied}

¶29

with the explanation by the appellant had ordered for enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer had conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted an enquiry report and based upon the findings of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has imposed a major penalty of removal vide proceedings dt.25-07- 1994. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred appeal and revision unsuccessfully and later challenged the orders of remova-l by filing I.D.No.33 of 1995 before the Industriai Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short^,the Tribunal,) under Section 2 (A) 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'tr]e Act, 1947'1. The appellant had further contended that the Tribunal was pleased to pass an award in favour of the appellant vide orders d,t.26_06_ 1997 and was pleased to set aside the orders of removal and was pleased to direct the is! respondent to reinstate the appellant into service rvith half of the back wages.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that in pursuance of the ar.r,ard passed by the Tribuna.l, the appellant was reinstated into service. The 1"t respondent has challenged the orders passed by the Tribunal by filing W.p.No.32910 of 199g before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the Writ petition vide orders

¶31

IICJ & AKS,J w.P No 698of200?

¶32

dt.l}-O7^{-2017 and was pleased to set aside the award} passed in favour of the^{appellantand held that the} punishment of removal imposed^{on the appellant is} wholly^justified.

¶33

Learned counsel^{for the appellant had further} contended that the^{learned Single Judgefailed to} appreciate that^{the Tribunalgave a specific iinding that} the complainart,^{who has alleged that the appellalt had} indulged in theft,^{was not examinedin the domestic} enquiry and^{the Tribunal has given cogent reasons ald} held that the^{chargeleve11ed against the appellarrtwas} not proved and^{the Tribunal has rightly passed orders in} favour of the^{appellant by setting aside the orders of} removal and^{directed the 1"t respondentto reinstatethe} appellant into^{serviceand later the appellant hasalso} retired from^{service on attaining the superannuation'} Therefore, learned^{counselfor theappellanthad} contended that^{appropriate ordersbe passedin the Writ} Appeal b,v^{setting aside the orderof the learnedSingle} Judge and^{further ciirect the 1" respondentto settleall} terminal^{benefitsin favourof the appellant'}

¶34

Learned^{counsel for the} 1"t respondent^had Judge has^rightlY contended^{that the iearned Single}

¶35

¶36

passed orders in lavour of the 1.r re spondent and r.r'as pleased to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge had appreciated the evidence and gave a finding that the appellant was involved in a theft and accordingly set aside the orders of the Tribunal. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

7 . This Court having considered the riva_l submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the complainant who was alleging that the theft was committed by the appellant u,as not examined and the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion based upon the preponderances and probabilities and held that the appellant is found guilty. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was not right in reversir-rg the findings of the Tribunal and the Tribunal gave a specific linding that the persons who has written the complaint against the appellant has also not supported the version of the 1"1 respondent. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.p.No.32910 of 1998 dt.18-O7-2O17 is set aside as the Tribunal has rightly passed orders in favour of the appellant in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Act. 1947.

¶38

HCj & AKsJ w P No 698 oi 2007

¶39

Therefore the^{Writ Appeal is allowedsetting} aside the^{impugnedorder of the learned Single Judge} passed in W.P.No'32910^{of 1998 dt'18-07-2OO7'This} order is^passed in^{order to give quietus to the long} pending litigation^{betweenthe parties and also in viewof} the fact that^{the appellant was reinstatedinto service in} pursuance to an^{Awardpassed by the Tribunal and also} the appellant^{has also retiredfrom service on attaining} the superannuation.^{Pending mrscellaneousapplications'} if any, sha1l^{stand closedThere shall be no order as to} costs.

¶40

¶41

so/-M.:AilHLEHsDffiH (a, ,TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To, ? 3 4 5 ;g;'5,55[:flffi$ti-#-,''"r;tr" 6. 7. One^{SPare CoPY} TR SW ?

HIGH COURT

DATEDi'l410212022

ORDER

WA.No.698 of 2007

<br>1n17

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

@io 2-

¶50

Mohd. Ghani, v. The Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ghani, v. The Depot Manager

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

Akber Mohiuddin Ansari, Vs the Union of India, Rep. by Minority of Law and Justice, and 3

Tggda, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Health and 3 Ors.

Pola Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

S. Venkatachary S/. Rajarajm Vs The Karimnagar -Addilabad Milk Producers Co-Operative-

Toodi Bharat Ratna Vs Telangana State Human Rights Commission (Tshrc)

M/s. Hill County Villas Owners Association and another Vs State of Telangana and 6 Others