Dismissed

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad v. the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and 1

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023WP/12125/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal Award ordering reinstatement with benefits, noting that the respondent employee had already retired post-reinstatement, rendering meritless scrutiny of the award inutile. The Court directed the company to consider retirement benefits within the statutory period.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Respondent directed to submit representation for retirement benefits within 2 weeks; Authority to consider and pay dues within 4 weeks thereafter.

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

{

I t. t

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 12125 OF 2004

¶11

Between:

¶12

M/w ESPI lndustnes & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot^No, 9/2, lDA, Uppal, behind^Parke Davis , Hyderabad- 500 013, rep. by its Drrector Sri J.N. Sastry, s/o Late^Anjeneya sarma' aged about 46 years'

¶13

...pETrroNER

¶14

AND

¶15

The Charrma n-cum- Presiding Officer, Hyderabad, Addl. lndustrial^{Tribunal -} cum-Addl. Labour Cou( M J^Road, Chandra Vihar Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶16

2 Smt K Subhadra W/o Bal Reddy, R/o 3-5-18/8, Baratnagar,^Ramanthapur, H,derabad-13

¶17

...RE'P.NDENTS

¶18

Petrtion under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in^the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court may be} pleased to issue a wrrt. order or drrection in the nature of Writ of Certiorari^by calling for records rn I D No^'134 of 2000 and declare the^{Award dated9-3-2004} published vrde G O Rt No 759 dated 7-5-2004, on 30-6-2004, on the file of Addl lndustrial Trrbunai cum-Addl Labour Court, Hyderabad^{as null, void and illegal} and consequentry^quash the tmpugned^{Award or otheMise the petitioner herein} will suffer grave and rrreparable loss.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1OF 2004(WPMP. NO:15413OF²⁰⁰⁴¹

¶20

Petrtron .rnder Sectron 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed^rn support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay} all further^proceedrngs rn Award dated 9-3-2004^{published vide G.O.Rt.No.759} daled 7^-5-2004 on 30-6-2004^{on the file of Addl. lndustrialTribunal-cum-Addl} Labour Court. Hyderabad as otherwlse the^{petitionerherein will suffer grave and} irreparable loss

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. V. HARI HARAN} Counsel for the Respondent^{No- 1: GP FORLABOUR} counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI M. RAMMOHAN REDDY} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

TIIE H.)N'I}I,E SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISIIEK RI]DDY WRIT PE,TITI ON No.l 2125 ot' 2001

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Chall :nging the Arvard datcd 09.0j.10tr4 rassed by the Additiona-l ndustrial'lribrrrral-cr-rm-Adcliti<,rrai [.rt :our Couft, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.lj4 ol'2000. dirccrinq rh,: petitioner company tr reinstate the rcspondent Nc.2 ern;:rl6.,rgs 1.,a service with in one rnonth rl'onr rhe date of' pLrbrir:r,(ion of the Award, witlollt back r,r,aqes, bLrt treating tltc r.cs1r,_.,1fl6:n1 \6.1 employee ir continuous scrr ice lor hcr rc,tirernc:irt benel.its, without con: equential benellts lbr. the peri<,cl cf al.lserce, the petitioner ()o nl)arty has flied thc present \ rir I)e tiri,:,n.

¶25

Lear.ne l counsel for thc petitioner (.ontprut y and the learned coun;eI for the resl-rontlcrrt No.2 enrplo,.,c.e I ar,,: statcd that the res;pondent No.2, alicr her r-einstatcrncnt ur:o :;crvice, retired fron-r I er.vice in August. 2022, ancl shr,, u,as paid wages till November ,?-022.

¶26

Having r.e.garcl to the luct that the resp!)t1dcnl. No.2 u,as reirstated i,tr sc^'ice, as crirt'ctccr b' trrc 'r'rit^..ar r ire {*,ard

¶27

.14R, J rr'.P.No.l2l25 or 2004

¶28

¶29

dated 09.03.2004 in t.D.No, 134 of 2000, arrd she has also retired frotn service, nc useful purpose vrill be achieved by going into the merits of the casc at this length of tirne. Thereforc, technically, nothillg remains to be acljudicated in the present Writ Petition.

¶30

Having regard to Ihe abovc, this Writ^petition is dismissed.

¶31

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondcnt No.2 employee has stated that the respondent No.2 ernployee is entitled tcr retirement benefits including gratuity.

¶32

The learned counsel tbr the pctitioner has stated that the respondent No.2 employec tnay be directed to give a representation to the autlrority concerned of the petitioner company seeking to settlc the retiremer-rt benefits including gratuity and thc authority concerned ofthe petitioner company may be directed to consider such representation of the petitioner.

¶33

d{R, J \ | N, l2 125 ot 2004

¶34

¶35

il {

¶36

,\c<:o, dingly, the respondent No.2 is rlircctr:d to sr-rt-rmit a rcprescntrlti )rr to the authorify concerned of lh: Iretitioner c(lnipan)' . bl granting her retirement benelitr; including gratuity, wi thin a period of two (2) weeks frr,nr :.r.rday and on such repres:ntation being made, the authority corrcrerned of the petitioner c ornpany shall consider the sai,l rep',:;entation of the respond ent No.2 employee and pay the anroL tl .s as pel her statutory er tiLlement under the relevant rules anrl rerlulations, u,ithin a per iod of four (4) weeks thcreafter

¶37

Misct,[aneous applications, il- any pendin-l:. shall stand

¶38

closed. The'e shall be no order as to costs

¶39

SD/-I..S^{IVA, PARVATHI} ASSrsrAr,rilEj:llu

//TRUE^COPY//

S:(:TIC)N^OFFICER

To,

I ne Chairnlar^{-c-rn'-PresidingOfflcerHyderabadAtrdl lro l'tr'a Trrbunal-} .,i;;i;i - ; ;li couit'^{rv Ll ioa?cnindra^vrharllu rl'1J;Hvderabad} 2 6;; Ca. i"^s ,\i Hiri^{Haran Advocatet-oPUCl^} 3 Y*l Ecrl,r-,^{ji roi Luoori n'ghCourtior tne State )f [€'lI .r Jan a at} Hvderabad It^)UTl 4 5'"1, ci. il s"'ilr^{hm Mohan Reddy Advocate [oP lc'} 5 Two CD^{CoPi :s} CHR lls

Pr"rq.

{

{

HIGH COUR T

DATED:2510 +12023

ORDER

W.P.No.121',15 of 2004

¶53

.--:-
,.,, , - r L .i '.
/ 'ra .\ '.<br><br>/, .. lr
. 5 "iI iB23

¶54

DISMlSSIN(; THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C OSTS

¶55

@t^o^
qu\z.,x

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad v. the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad v. the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and 1

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

Ms. K.V.N.V. Bharathi Devi Vs Sri M. Jagadeeswar, lAS

Challa Ramadevi Vs Rama Rama Rao and another

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners Vs Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

Doddipati Saraiah Vs Vuppu Mallikarjun

Sale Ravi, Khammam District Vs the Commissioner , Dpet., F Ayush, and 3 Others

Jadhav Darabii, Adilabad District. Vs the Jawaharlal Nehru Technologicialuniversity, Hyd.