Writ Appeal dismissed as the High Court found no merit to interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the corporation's petition against a reinstatement award, noting the inquiry report was not filed and the workman had retired.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE GHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 740 OF 2009
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 09-09-2008 passed in W.P.No.21656 of 1999 on the file of the High Cour1.
Between:
The APSRTC, Rep by its Depot Manager,, Falaknuma Depot, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2009 WAMP. NO: 1443 OF 2009
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin
the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the operation of the order dt. 11-03-1999 in l.D.No,31/1998publishedin G.O.Rt.No.759, dated 28-04-1999, Labour Employment Training andFactories (Lab-l) Dept. as confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 21656i1999, dt. 09-09-2008 to an extent of back wages,pending disposalof Writ Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI KAMBHAM MADHAVAREDDY Sa/d"'i Ga.rnsul b.cT APSP.IC
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR LABOUR
Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRIA. SANJEEVKUMAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
TH i HON'BLE THE CHrEF JUSTICE SATTSH CHANDRA SHARMA
/
AND
l'HE HON'BI_E SRI JtjS',rt(:E ABtitNAND KtitltAR SHAVILI
WIIIT APPEAL No.740 of 2009
IUDGMENT: (Pet Hon'ble Sti Jrtstice Abhinand Ktrmar Slnrili)
as a misco rduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings and
2
after conductinga detailed enquiryand for the proven misconduct,has imposedthe punishment of removalfrom service ui,lc order,dated 09.08.1994' Challenging the same'' the 2"d respondenthas preferred I.D'No'31of 1998 before the 1." respondent-LabourCourt-I, Hyderabad,under Section 2'A(2) of the Industrial DisputesAct',1947 ' The 1" respondent uideAward, dated11.03'1999 whilesettingaside the removal orderdated og.o8.lgg4,directed the Coqporation toreinstatethe 2"d respondentinto servicewith full back wages, continuityof service and aftendantbenefits' Challenging the saidAward, the Corporation filed V.P.No.2165 6 oflggg before this Court' This Cnunuide order, dated09.09.2008 dismissed the same' without appreciatrngany contentionsraised by the appellant' Aggrieved by thesaid orderpassed by the learnedSingle Judge,the C-orporation filedthe present\X/rit Appeal'
.)
05.Learned counsel appeanngfor the 1'" respondent had contenderthat in pulsuance of the Awardpassed by the 1" responde:rt, the 2'd respondentwas reinstated into service and hea lso retired from service on attainingthe age of suPerannration and hence, no interferenceis called for in the orderpa: sed bythe leamed SingleJudge'There are no metits in the w tappeal and the same is liable to be dismissed'
4
\
"Upon perlr-sal of the material on record, and the reasons rtcorded b), the'lirbLLnal, I am convinced drat the findings recorded ;re in cor.fonnitv wjth the evidence on record. Though the dornestrc inquiry wx held to be valid, it x alwap open Ior the Tribr.rnal to r.eappreciate the evidence on rccord and come to a di{ferem conclusion, contmry ro the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. It is not known as ro on N,haa basis the inquiry officer has recorded a finding against the respondent, and no such copy of the inquiry officert repon is filed before *rs C-oun, and in the absence of such repon, I do not find any merit rn this writ petition. It is also to be noticed that no fare was collected by the respondent-Condr.rctor from the passengen to w{rom tickets were not issued. In thar view of the maner also, it ca-nnot be said that the respondent-C-onductor has got the intention of misappropriating the amount."
Leamed Single Judge has categorically held that the irqrr.y report was not filed before this Coun and in the absence of ir,qury officer's repofi, the case could not have been appreciated by this Coun. In order to give a quietus to the long pending litigation berween the parties and taking into
5
a
consideratic n the fact that the 2"d respondenr was reinstated into service in punuance of the Award passed by the 1" respondent and he also retired from service on ;rttaining the age of supe annuation, this C-ourt is not inclined to inter{ere with the or< er passed bythe leamed Single Judge. A7. Acco dingly, the Vrit Appeal is dismrssed. No costs. Misc,llaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed
SDi.M.VIJAYA BHASKAR DEPUry REGISTRAR
\
//TRUE COPY//
\
SECTION O",C'*
To, 2.1. The Presidinr one CC to Sr Officer. Kambham ruaanava-neaov Labour.Court__ I Chandra n*jri"u'iJibpuClVihar, Hyderabad. 3. 4. Two cCs tojp For t_aoour,.l-rish C"r,r%;il;5i;i",it retansana. [oUTt one cc to sr Andaoaili sanj;i Ku;;inouljirid"tSiucl 5. Two CD Cooi ;s 6. One Spare b rpy MBC SW
t
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2210212022
... -',.rlt-r
(-
2 1 r4,qn 2022
tr
ORDER
WA.No.740 of 2009
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL
,,
WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition given the absence of the inquiry report and the fact that the workman has already retired.
Whether the High Court should allow the Writ Appeal filed by the APSRTC challenging the single Judge's order which dismissed the original corporate petition regarding misconduct and reinstatement awar
Whether the single Judge's observation regarding the lack of inquiry report and lack of merit in the petition was a ground for dismissal despite the disciplinury proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
APSRTC
Presiding Officer, Labour Court - I Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad
A. Dayanand
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
