Allowed

P. Narasingha Rao, Hyd. v. the Labour Court-I, Hyd. and Another

Telangana HC25 Jan 2022WP/26679/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court granted back wages and consequential benefits to a petitioner, a bus conductor reinstated by the Labour Court without back wages, as the misconduct charges were not proved due to the complainant being inebriated.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant back wages and consequential benefits to the petitioner and ticket consequence. Writ petition allowed without costs.

P. Narasingha Rao, Hyd. Vs the Labour… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO; 266 79 0F 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

conductor E.No. z22s4, c/o. A. rhirupathi Reddy i_if,5S)Df?.5fl?;3i?, "rrYE,.?lB"?i ...PETITIONER

¶9

ANO

¶10

1 The Labour Court-|, 2nd Floor. Chandra Vihar Building. NI.J. Road. Nampally, lyderabad.^{Rep. by the Presiding Officer.}

¶11

2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.i., Musheerabad Depot, Hyderabad,

¶12

,,.RESPONDE NTS

¶13

Petition under A/licle 226 of the Cons tution of lndia praying that jn the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue an order direction more particularry one in the nature of writ of certiorari Declaring the Award passed by the Respondent No.1 vide in LD.No.168 of 2005 dt. 2210112008 vide c.O.Rt.No.6Bi dt. 1-4-2008 published on 7-5-2008 in so far as denying the back wages to the petitioner as illegal, uniust and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to treat the reinstatement of the petitioner along with full back wages and pay consequential benefits to the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity.

¶14

MP. N 758 0F

¶15

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidai/it filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to expedite the date of hearing of the writ petition and pass such any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. A. THTRUPATHI REDDy

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: Gp FOR LABOUR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt C. SUNILKUMAR REDDy (sc FoR TSRTC)

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶20

WRIl' PIiTITION NO,26 679 0F 2009

¶21

()RDER

¶22

This Writ Petition has been llled by the' peritioner seeking a Writ. order or direction nrole particularlr, one in the nature ol Writ of Certiorari declaring the award passed b1 the l'r respondent in I.D.No.l68 of 2005 dt.22.01.2008 in so f'ar as denying back wages ro the petitioner as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the reinstatement of the petitioner along with full back wages and consequently pay the consequential benefits to the petitioner in the interest ofjustice and equity.

¶23

Brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the 2"d respondent Corporation in the year 1977 and he continued to work as such till he was removed from service vlda proceedings dt.l 1.07.2004. Questioning^{the sante, the peritioner} raised an industrial dispute in l.D.No.l 68 ol 2005 bcfbrc the I '' r.espondent and rhe Labour Courl rcinstated the petitioner into service rvith continuiry. ol' scr.vice but rvithout back wages. Questioning 1he same, this Wr.it Petition is flled.

¶24

'l'he charge agairrst the petitioncr was tlrar he had collected a surn ol lLs.3/- fiom a passenger fbund alighting the bus, but issued a ticket of Rs.4/- which was alrcady accounted lbr at stage No.8, i.e.,

¶25

W.P. No.:6679 ot,..l0b9

¶26

the petir ioner rc'r.ssLrcd thc. rie iicr at \antpnlll i.e .. st:l-!e \o. 10. I l which const itut cs rlisconduct ancl lltoLrnls to \ iolalior) of.RcgLrlation 28(x)(iv.a) of th c r\PSRTC Enrplo_rec_s (Conduct) liegrrlations. J96-i.

¶27

Learned counsel lor the peritioner, Sri A. Tirupathi Reddy, submitted that the Labour Court has given a finding that the enquiry was not conducted on proper evidence and the adrnission by the TTIs about the inebriated condition of the said passenger clearly indicates that the passenger is not conscious ofwhat he is speaking to the TTIs and recording this finding only, the Labour Court has directed the reinstaternent of the petir.roner into service with contiituity of service but has denied the back wages rvithout any reason. e submirted that the petitioner r.vas i.ernoved fhrnr scrvice t,ide "ae^proceedings dt.o, .l I .200.1, *.,ue.rcas he \.rc r^;,,-,^... u'as rcittstatcd ittto se.r ice by the arvard of the Labour Courr crt.22.01. the petitioner -". ",,, "r.,":o::. ,"'-rl; |,. ,:r:"":" entitled to full back wages. ^l:", 5, Leamed counsel for the 2,d lespondent, Sri Sunil Kurnar, on the other hand, relied upon the contentions raised in the counter affidavit stating that the re-issue of ticker ro a passenger after collecting the correct fare from him is a gra t'"onou"t deserving the punishment of removal from service, or," I the Labour Court has been lenient in modifring the punishment and ordering reinstatement inro service

¶28

W. P No 26(,79 012009

¶29

¶30

denying only the back wages. Therefbre, according to hirn, no interference ofthis Coun is called for.

¶31

6, llaving regard to the rival contentions and the rnaterial on record, this Court finds that during the enrlLriry, it u'as clearlv fbund that the passenger, who lrad given statelnent that he had given Rs.3/but was given a ticket of Rs.4/-, was not in sober condition and he was in an inebriated condition and it was also admitted by the TTIs that the passenger was not in a sober condition to give a statement. This statement of the TTIs was also corroborated or affinned by the driver of the bus. Taking the same into consideration, the Labour Court^has held that the findings of the enquiry officer are not on^proper evidence. Having held so, the Labour Court ought to^{have grantedftlll} back wages to the petitioner because the^{petitioner was put out of} service not due to any fault of his. As the^{chargesare not proved} against the petitioner, he ought to have been^granted back^rvages. Therefore, the respondents are directed to grant back^{wages andthe} consequential benefits to the^petitroner.

¶32

7, 'fhe Writ Petition rs accorditrulr allori'ed. No cosls

¶33

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. in this Writ^Petition shall stand closed That Rule Nisi^{has been madeabsoluteas above.}

¶34

Witness the^{Hon'ble the Chief Justice SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA'on this} Tuesday, the^{Twenty Fifth day of January, Two ThousandandTwenty Two'}

¶35

¶36

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶37

SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

To, 1 The Presidinq Officer,^{Labour Court-|, 2nd Floor' Chandra Vihar Building'M J'} 2 ?fl St$XTft'ilY;#f^{i1?o3o*(i8l[i,"3'133;,1133'J"potHvderabad}

¶39

3 One CC to Sri A. Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court for the State ofTelangana at Hyderabad lourl

¶40

5 One CClo Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC]

¶41

6 Two CD Copies 7 One Spare Copy CHR \

_.-.+2-

t
I

\ HIGH COURT

DATED:2510112022

ORDER

r
/"'%
(i 25 MAB2022 i',

¶49

W.P.No.26679 of 2009

¶50

ALLOWING THE-WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

@*6"

P. Narasingha Rao, Hyd. v. the Labour Court-I, Hyd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Narasingha Rao, Hyd. v. the Labour Court-I, Hyd. and Another

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

Nagoju Malla Chary Vs the Secretary, Endowments Dept. and 4 Ors.

B. Uma Maheshwari, Khammam Dist. Vs the Dist. Collector and Chairman, Khammam and 2 Others

T.H. Naidu Vs the Apsrtc., Rep by Depot Manger and Another

M. Pochaiah Vs the Labour Court - Ii, and Another

G.Sreeram Murthy, Kottagudem and 7 Vs Chairman and M.D.Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd and 4

Md.Ghouse Vs the Regional Manager and 2 Others