The High Court of Telangana dismissed an employer's writ appeal challenging a Writ Petition order that upheld an Industrial Tribunal award reinstating a workman with 50% back wages after wrongful termination for misconduct.
Writ Appeal No. 977 of 2017 dismissed; no costs awarded to the appellant.
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
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
wRlT APPEAL NO: 977 OF 2017
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order daled 21 .1 0.20'l 6 in W. P. No.27 856 l2OO5 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
The Depot Managar, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC)) Bus Depot, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
...AppellanUWrit Petitioner
AND
1 . Gollamandala Subba Raju, S/o. G.Pushpara.ju E.800313, Ex-CondA r Fl/o
...Respondents/Respondents
l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WAMP. NO:1903 OF 2017)
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 grant stay of operation of Awa rd passed in lD No.105/ 2004 dated 17.03.2005 on the file of the lndustrial Tribunal - ll, Hyderabad, pending disposal of above W.A. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. N. VASUDEVA REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC)
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED
Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
.f TIE HO N'BLE THE CHIEF IT]S'[ ICE SA'I'TSH CTIANDRA SHARN{A AND
HE II E SIII TI INAND SHA w.A. No.977 o f 2017
IUDGMENT: lbtt. Hotbl th a/ ct J,tlkr .\ditt <.tad!t ! r:tvn4
The present appeal is arising out of order dated 21.10.2016" passed by the learned SingleJudge, in W.p.No.27856 of 2005 (fhe Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Gollamandala Subba Raju and another).
The facts of the case revcal rhat respondcnt No.1/workman was sub,ected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet on 12.1.2.2000 and thereafter, an enguiry was hcld in the matter. The enquiry officer has held the chargcs proved against the workman and the disciplinary authoriry has passed an order of punishment on 07.05.2001, against which, an appeal was preferred and the same was also refected by the appellare aurhoriry.
The workman in question took sheltcr of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by preferring a petition under Section 2A(2) thereof i.e., I.D.No.105 of 2004 and the Industrial Tribunal, aFter scanning the entire evidence, has set aside the order of punishment \
1
and dirccted rcinstatcmcnt of thc rvorkman into scn icc rvith 50% backwages uide award dated 17.03.200-i
'fhc employer, bcing aggrici,cd by thc award passed by the Labour Court, camc up before this Court by hLing \Xr.P.No.27856 of 2005.'l'he learncd SinglcJudgc has upheld the award passed by the Tribunal and disrnisscd the s,rit petition.
Paragraphs 11 ancl 1-2 o[ thc irr-rpugncd order passed by the learncd SingieJudgc in W.P.No.27856 of 2005 read as undcr:
'11. Coming to the re[efs granted, in A.L.Kalra v. The Profect and Equipment Corpontion of India Limited (AlR i9B4 SC1361) a three Judge Bench of thc Apex(Jourt, whilc deaiing with the issue of paymcnt of back wagcs aftet holding his rcmoval from sen.icc as illcgal, hcld that though he was employed clsewhere during the period of his removal still he is cntided to 50% of the back wages. \n Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kran ti lunior Adhyapak Mahauidyala and othets (2 (2013) 10 SCC 324) the Apex Court after referring to all the iudgmentson the subjcct,including the judgments of the Apex Court h J.K.Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agrawal ((2001) 2 SCC 433) and Zilla Parishad, Gachiroli v. Prukash ((2009) 4 Mah.LJ 628), held as under:
3
I I I
i) In cases of u,rongtul termination c., i scn,icc, rclnstatemcnt rvith condnuifi,of sen,ice and back .r,rg"a ia the normal rulc.
ri)'I'he aforcsaid rule is subjcct to rhe riclcr that ,.vhile decidng thc issue of back wages, thc a,iirJicaJni, aurhority, or the Court may take ilro .on*ia.ruon in! Iength o.f servicc of the cmployee/workman, rht, nlrurc of misconduct, .if any, found ptoved against ;; employee/workman, rhc Frnancial .onaitio,.r of J_," employer and similar othe r facrors.
iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose sen ices arc rerminated and who is desirous of gettrng lrr.f ,r.r,r"* is requircd to eirhcr plcad ur u, I"r.r"rr,rk"', .,r,.,;:;, before the adjudicating aurhoriry or rhe Courr of flrsr ,nstance that he/she was nor gain fulll cmpl, rl 1 j e, 11 2s employed on_ lesscr rvages. If th.-e ..ploy". i"n.,,. ,,, ,,..,rL paymenr of full back wages, rhen ir iras-to pleacl and also lead cogent evidence to prove that rhe employee/workman_ was gainfully employed ,"a *", getthg v/ages equal to the wages he/she rvas drawins prior to the termination of serviJe. This is so f.r..^rr" i, ji setded law tl.rat the burden of proof "f ,n" .*ir,.,... oil padcular fact lies on rhe per;on who makes u po.ii .. averments about its existence. It is always easier to ptove lposi:vefact thanro prove a .,egati.,e fact.l.h.rilorc, once the employee shows that he was not employetl, the onus ,lieson .rheemployerto specificallypt.ra'rnapr.,u. tnat tne employec was gainfully employcd and was serri.ro the same or substandally simiiar emoluments.
iv) The cases in which the Labour Courr/ Industrial Jri.bunl.exercisespowet under S..1"" fr_e oiif,. Industrial .Disputes Act, 1947 and fin<js ,tr", "u"., ,trount rhe .enquiry. . held against th" "-ploy""/*"rf.r"-i. consistent with the rules of natutal justice and/or ..r,inJ standing orders, if any, but holds ,f,r, ,n. p, jrfl.n, ,rul olsproportronarc to tJre misconduct lound pror-cd, then it will havc the discretion nor to awatd lull back rvrres. Horvever, iF the Labour Coun/ Ind ustria ai;;;.i';"J r-har the. employce or workman is not at all gurlrv ol-aiu rnisconducr or rhar rhc employer nrJ r"i!,lj , rrr.l
I
chaq;c, thcn thcre rvill bc amplcjtrstrt-tcltion ltrrarvard of full back rvagcs.
v)'I'he cases in rvhich the conlPetentCourt or Tribunal finds that the cmplolerhas actcd in gross vtolaLionof thc statutory provisionsand/or the ptinciplcs of narural iusticeor is guilry ofvictimizingthecmployee- or workman, then the concerned(lourtot Ttibunal will be lulty iustified in directingpaymcntof full back wages'
Labour Coutr((1980)4 CC 443)' hcld as under:
"the criticalanalysis of law laid down is verY much relevant to thecase on hand, whicl.r is neithetdiscussed nor considered andcxamined by the courtsbelow while answering theteference madcb1' the State Government and passilng theaward, iudgmcntsand orders in a cavalicr -rrr.r.r.T-hus,the lives o[ the appellantand his family membetshave been hampered.Furthcr, on facts, we have to hold that theorder of terminationpassedis highly disproportionatetothc graviry ofmisconduct and theteforeshocksthc conscienccof this Coutt'Hence'we hold that theappellant is entitled fcrr thc rcliels as prayed is ditectedto tcinstatethe appellant ^Jil;;il;ient ;;il;; *itr, br.twages from the dateof tarsing the t"d#i di.prt" tilthe'date of his reinstatement withall .."*q"""aribenefitssuchas continuityof serv-icc' wage revisionsand other statutory monetarybcnefits'""
This Courthas carefully gone through the award Passedby
the IndustrialTribunal'
5
\
-t'he finding of facts arrived ar by rhe Indusuial ,l.ribunal make it very clear that the workman was not guilty of rhe charges levelied against him. It has also been held by the T,ribunal that the enquiry <;fficer was uniustified, in the absence of evidcnce, to hold the charges proved. The finding of facts have been af,frmed by the learned Single Judge also. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason ro interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned SinglcJudge.
Another important aspect of the case is that, as there was no interim order granted in the matter, the workman was rcinstated lnto scrvrce.
'l-he Vrit Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneo us petidons, pending if any, stand dismissed.
SD/-K.ONESIM DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// A#t' SE cTtoil o FFICER
To,
f
HIGHCOURT
DATED:21t0412022
JUDGMENT
W.A.No.977 ot 2017
'r.: ,'i r' { } <br>t
2Z AIJE ztrd
tj
l /-1) ./
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
1.1, @cof'%g,-o1$r-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Industrial Tribunal's award reinstating a workman with 50% back wages despite the employer's grievance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.L. Kalra vs. The Project Engineering Corporation of India LimitedReferred¶30
A.L.Kalra v. The Procect and Equipment Corporation of India Limited AIR 1984 SC 1361 · Who else cites this
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Maha VidhyalaReferred¶30
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Maha Vidhyala and others (2013) 10 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
I.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. AgrawalReferred¶30
I.K.Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agrawal (2001) 2 SCC 433 · Who else cites this
Zilla Parishad, Gachiroli vs. PrakashReferred¶30
Zilla Parishad, Gachiroli v. Prakash (2009) 4 Mah.LJ 628
Hindustan Tin Works vs. EmployeesReferred¶40
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. V. Employees ((1919) 2 SC(- 80)
Sutendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial TribunalReferred¶40
SutendraKumar Vetma v. Central Govt. Industdal Tribunal -cum- Labour Court ((1980)4 CC 443)
Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager and othersReferred¶40
Raghubir Singh v General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar ((2014) 10 SCC 301) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC)
Gollamandala Subba Raju
The Labour Court-II, Hyderabad
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
