Dismissed

The Chairman and Managing Director, v. The Presiding Officer

Telangana HC26 Oct 2022WP/25705/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that granted wages to workmen. The Court held the Tribunal justified in ordering wages by analogy with executives who received pay despite taking mass casual leave. Petitions dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions against Industrial Tribunal award dismissed. No costs awarded. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Chairman and Managing Director, Vs The… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I I

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE I .- Ar rro.tJfJioot^TELANGANA (Speciat Origina, .turii-aiction)

¶4

d [^3s18 ' o a r

¶5

WEDNES-DAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWo THOUSANo ar,ro rwervrv iwd' "".^

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

rHE HoNoURABLE sRt ,rrlfis ABHTNAND KUMAR sHAVtLt

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶9

Between:

¶10

WRIT PETITI NN 94 OF 997 g e-t') ""1cr7

¶11

The Chairman and fiilanaoing Dlrector, Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Kothagudem.

¶12

..,PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

Presiding Officer, lndustrial Tribunal, - l, Chandra Vihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Chief Vice President, Central Council, Singareni Collieries Workers Union, P.O. Bellampalli District Adilabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue an order. direction or writ, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI after calling for the records^{flom the 1"t respondentin} LD.No.10/1989 and quash the Award^passed therein dated^14-2-1996.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner^: SRl.P.SRI^{HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI} coLLTERTES CO.LTD)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : SRI.G.VIDYASAGAR}

¶21

W P,NO: 25705 OF 1997

¶22

B€twogn:

¶23

¶24

Collieries^{Co Ltd,} The Chairman^{& ManagrngDirecto'' tvlis' TheSingarent} K;ih;;;;;-C"llierres^{rP-o1' Kn"'""} Drstrict^{A P}

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

1 The Presiding^{Officer, lndustrialTribunal-l'ChandraVihar'M'J Road'} Hyderabad.

¶28

(Dismissed for default^{as per Court Order dated 23-8-2000as agalnstR -1)}

¶29

2 The Secretary, Central^{Council'SlnOirrg1lollielesWorkers Union'} Godavarikhani^{(P O) , KARITMNAGAR DIST.' A P.}

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition'uncler Article 226 of the^{Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order, direc:ion or Writ particularly one in the^{natureof WRIT} OF CERTIORARI after calling for the records^{from the first respondentin} l.D. No.12 of 1989 and^quash the Award^passed therein^{dt.'14-2-1996.}

¶32

I.A.NO:1 OF 1997(W PMP. NO: 29914 OF 1997)

¶33

Petition under Section 15-1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Award passed by the first respondent in l.D.No.12 of 1989, dated 14-2-1996, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶34

|.A.NO:1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 17744 OF 2011

¶35

Petition under Section t 5'1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 260 days rn representing the above Wp No. 25705 of^.1997.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt.p.SRt HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR S|NGARENI coLLtERtES CO.LTD)

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No..l : Gp FOR LABOUR

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.G.VIDYASAGAR

¶39

rhe Courr made the following COMMON ORDER

.r-

sHA

AND

THE HON:BLESRI JUSTICE RAo WritPetition Nos.9 489 and 2s7o5 ofl 997

¶45

coMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand. Kumar Shauili)

¶46

Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order as the issue raised in this writ petition is one and the same.

¶47

Heard Sri.P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collaries Company Limited- (S.C.C.L), Sri.G.VidyaSagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Union.

¶48

These tu,o u,rit petitions are filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal') in I.D.Nos. i0 and 12 of l9B9 dated 14.02.1996.

¶49

. For convenience, the facts in W.P.No.9489 of 1997 are discussed here under:

¶50

¶51

Learned counsel for^{the petitionerscontended that the2"d} respondent-unionhasraisedadispute.beforetheconciliationofficer in respect of^{denyingthe wages to the workers on 14'07'1987 and}

¶52

¶53

¶54

AKS,]^{& NRR']} wp- 9489^{and 25705ot1997}

¶55

16.07'1987^{on the ground that oificersof the companywent on mass} casuar^{reave; conciliationproceedingswere initiated' and when the} conciliation^{proceedingsfailed" the conciliation officer submitted a} failure^{report to the appropriate Government; the appropriate} Government^{vide order dated 12-1989has referred the dispute to the} Industrial^{Tribunalunder Section 10(1)(a) arrd 2A of the lndustrial} Tribunal^{Acl, 1947;thereafter' the Tribunal has passed al awardon} l4.O2.1996^{holdingthat the rvorkmen are entitled for wages for those} two days^{i.e.14.07.1987 and 16.O7. 1987;and aggrievedby the same'} the present^{writ petitionsare filed'}

¶56

Learned counsel^{for thc petitlonersfurther contended that the} Tribunal was not^{justified rn passing an award in favor of the2nd} respondent as it is the^{prerogativeof the petitionerstodeclare} lockdown for the circumstances which^{were bevond the control of the} employer; all the executives who were working with^{the petitioner went} on mass casual leave on 14.07.1987 and 16.07.1987, and the petitioner has no ether option except to declare those two days as lockdown, and r,r'hen lockdorvn was declared, the question of paying wases to the workmen wourd not arise; therefore the Tribunal ened in passrng an award in favor of the respondent No.2-Union; and therefore prayed this Court to pass order by setting asirle the orders passed by

¶57

¶58

I I

¶59

AK5,J & NRR,] wp_ 9489 and 25705 of 1997

¶60

the Industrial in I.D.Nos.1O and 12 of 1989 dated 14.12.1986, and to allow the writ petition.

¶61

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Union contended that the petitioners have paid wages to the executives and denied the rvages to the u,orkmen; the Tribunal has rightly allowed the I. D filed by the workmen on the ground of discrimination; and therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

This court having considered t1-re rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view, that the Industrial Tribunal was justified in passing an award in favor of the 2.a respondent-Union as the executives went on mass casual leave and no wages were denied to the executives, and by complying the same analo5/, the workmen herein are a,lso entitled for u.ages. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal; and therefore both these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶63

Accordingly; the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs:^,

¶64

¶65

AKS,J & NRR,J wp_ 9489 and 25705 of 1997

¶66

10 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in these Writ

¶67

Petitions, shail stand closed.

¶68

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

'e SECTION OFFICER

Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶73

One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO.LTD) Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI G VIDYASAGAR, Advocate (OPUC)

¶74

Two CD Copies

¶75

One spare copy

S.A b.

?tn4^.

HIGH COURI

DATED:2611012022

5 1AT E 0r
rifA
,1 lt ttls

¶81

COMMON ORDER

¶82

WP.Nos.9489 AND 25705 of 1997

¶83

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS

¶84

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶85

?P.q, \tl*' 10

The Chairman and Managing Director, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman and Managing Director, v. The Presiding Officer

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

M. Narsimhulu, Medak Dist. Vs the High Court of A.P. Hyd. and Another

J.Ashok Kumar, Hyd. Vs Syed Walliullah, Hyd and 6 Others

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs J. Ramulu

The State of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs Vs Nakka Vijay Babu, Khm Dist. and Ano

Ponugupati Narayana Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

The General Manager (Personnel) Vs The Presiding Officer