Dismissed

Bharat Dynamics Ltd., v. The Labour Coaurt_I

Telangana HC20 Apr 2023WP/14881/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the employer's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award that reinstated an employee and granted back wages, finding the award proper and noting that remittal was futile due to the employee's death.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is permitted to consider a representation from the legal heirs for back wages but no order is made on the amount.

Bharat Dynamics Ltd., Vs The Labour Coaurt_I — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

J xi

HIGH COURT'FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶5

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

{

¶8

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶9

WRIT PETI^{TIONNO: I 4881 0F 2004}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Bharat Dynamics^Ltd '^{rep. by its General tvlanager'Kanchanbagh'Hyderabad}

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Labour^{Court-l, reP} by its Presiding^{Officer, ChandraviharBuilding'} Nampally,^HYderabad.

¶15

Sri C. Srinivas^{S/o. C. Narsaiah H No S-121' L B S-nagarNear RailwayGate'} ' ilt; i;;;; Bri;rsar, Hvderabad (Died as^{per LRs)}

¶16

C. Viiava,^{W/o Late C.Srinivas, Aged 44 years' R/oFlatNo 303 Plot No46'} Sree. S.atwik saoan,^{noao'ti"o] 2,'Eiiorii'L"vo^L{-tle"r Lilliput School, Hi Rise} ilj;ri, i'l;;p;i,^{ilansa neoov Diskict- s00 0e0}

¶17

4 C. Narsinqh^{Rao, S/o Late C srinivas' Ag:d 27 years'R/o Flat No 303' Plot} No. 46. Siee^{Satwik Sada"n,iiri i.r-" z, "slnoariLayo^ut, Near Lilliputschool,} i]Ini.Id dti""v,^{iiiiarpet,nanga Reddv District- 5000e0}

¶18

5 Bandela Manasa.^{D/o LateC srinivas'ngg9.2.9 yearsR/o H No 379/4'2"d} phase. Ailwyn Cotony, Nl"ar"Ai'il'ei;if^{n'iH/l fu'ratpatty,Medchal-Malkajgiri} District 500⁰⁷²

¶19

ht on^{recordas LRs of deceasedR2 as per}

¶20

(ResDondent Nos.3 to 5 are broug boui OrOer dated^{01.09.2022 in l} A.No.01 of²⁰²²⁾

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith'the High Court may be} pleased to issue^{any writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the natureof} Writ of Certiorari,^{calling for the recordsleading upto and including the Award dt'} 19'07-2003ofthe,lStrespondentinl,D.No'106of2O01andquashtheSame.

I {

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005 WPMP. NO:⁷⁶ 560^{F 2005)}

¶27

Between:

¶28

{

¶29

Sri C. Srinivas S;/o O.^{Narsaiah,Aged 34 years,R/o H'No'3- 21 L'B S Nagar'} Near Ratlway Gaie.^{Fateh Nagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad'}

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

1 Bharat D/n rnics Ltd.,^{Rep. by its GeneralMana3err,(anchanbagh,} Hyderabad.

¶33

2 The Labo.rr Crrurt-1, Rep. by^{rts PresidingOfficer, ChlrrlraviharBuilding,} Nampally. Hr derra bad.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition undr,r section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circrtn'starces stated in} the affidavit frled in^{sL pport of the petition, the High Court may bc ple'asedto direct} the respondents tc^{ply 17-B wagesfrom the date of stay of lho a!'/ard ie', from} 24-8-2004 alternati^{re y leinstatethe petitioner into service.}

¶36

t.A. NO:¹ oF 2013'WPMP.^{NO: 32620oF 2013)}

¶37

Petition urrd :r section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circ lrrstancesstated in} the affidavit tiled ir support^{of the petition,the High Court mav be p eased to take} up oul of turn final^{rearing of the Writ Petition.}

¶38

l.A. NO: 1 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶39

PMP. NO: 115 14 0F²⁰¹⁴¹

¶40

{

¶41

Petition urd :r Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circJfilstances stated in} the affidavit file,l^{1 supportof the petition,the High Court n ay re pleasedto} receive the addil.ior^{ral papers filed by the Petitioner.}

¶42

Counsel for the P(,tilioner:^{SMT.V. UMA DEVIs}

¶43

Counsel for the R,^{rsllondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR}

¶44

Counsel for the R,^{|spondentNos.3 to 5: SRIK. UDAYA SRI}

¶45

The Court made^{tl re} following:^ORDER

¶46

{

¶47

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶48

WRIT PETITION No.14881 of 2OO4

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

Challenging the Award dated 19.07.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, 1n I.D.No.l06 of 2001, the petitioner company has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company has stated that the Labour Court has erred in allowing I.D.No.106 of 2001 vide impugned award dated 19.01 .2003 with a direction to the petitioner company to reinstate the respondent No.2 employee with 25Yo of back wages from the date of order of removal of the respondent No.2 from service i.e., 30.11.1996 till the date of the said

¶52

order. The learned counsel has stated that the Labour Court having observed that the respondent No.2 has filed a memo under Section 1l-A of the Industrial Dispute Acr, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), stating that there is no dispute in respect of the procedural aspect of the domestic enquiry, has wrongly

¶53

come to the conclusion that the lespondent No.2 was denied

¶54

{E*e

¶55

AAR. J 2 W P'io.1488l oI200.l

¶56

the princip es; ofnatural^justice and therebl', set as;ide the order of retnova dated 30.11.1996 vide impugnec rwrlrd dated 19.07.2003. That once the Labour Court has r:onre to the or conchrsion tnat there is no violation o I the 1',rooedure principles rf natural justice by the disciplinarl' authority, it ought not r o have interfered with the order of. removal dated 30. 11.1996 and allowed the I.D. filed by the re;pontlent No.2 herein.

¶57

Per c rntra, the learned counsel for the rescr:,ndent Nos.3 to 5 who are the legal heirs of the deceas:cl re:spondent No.2/empkyt:e, has stated that the present [ri: Petition is liable to )e dismissed, as, the impugned award dated 19.01 .2003 prlssed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the principl :s of law laid down by the Hon'ble Siu treme Court as well rls this Couft. That the Labour Coul afl.er going through tne entire evidence and also the documenl.s nLarked on behalf of th e petitioner company and the responrle'nt t:mployee has righlly r:ome to the conclusion that th,: dis,ciplinary authority hrs violated the provisions of naturtl ju:;tice and

¶58

lR.,&,'. /;

¶59

AAR, J W.P.No.l4E81 of2004

¶60

¶61

i i I

¶62

thereby, set aside the order of removal dated 30.11.1996 and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent No.2 into service holding that the respondent No.2 is entitled to 25%o of back wages from the date of removal from service i.e., 30.11.1996 till the date of the impugned award, and is also entitled to continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

¶63

As seen from the impugned award dated 19 .01 .2003 , the Labour Court has rightly observed that the contents of the charge sheet were not properly explained to the petitioner; there was no evidence to show that the medical certificates submitted before the management by the respondent No.2 were referred to the enquiry officer; there was sufficient ground shown by the respondent No.2 to go on leave; the respondent was No.2 was not given a fair opportunity to^put forth his defense; the principles of natural^justice were not followed; the respondent No.2 was victimized by removing him from service vide order dated 30.11.1996; the^{order of} removal from service is a too harsh punishment for the^charges

¶64

,d,\R- J llr P \o 14841 ot 200,1

¶65

¶66

levellcd a1 ainst the respondent No.2. Therefore, ttre Labour Court whi e setting aside the order of removal lrom service dated 30.11.1996, has directed the petitioner cornpany to reinstate tl e respondent No.2 into service ra,itlL ll59'o of back wages fi"or n the date of order of removal dated 30.1 .1996 till the date of the impugned award and continuity o: serrvice and all other at endant benefits.

¶67

It is .o be noted that the scope of revieu r.Lnder Article 226 of Corstitution of India is very limited irnJ this Court sitting und:r Article 226 of Constitution of Irdia r:annot go into the m lrits of the case and re-appreciate the facts and evidence or r record

¶68

In BC. Chaturvedi v. Union of Indiar, .he Hon'ble

¶69

Supreme C rurt has held as under:

¶70

' .....A review olthe above legal position would estiLbLsh t at the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellirte e lthority, being lict-finding authorities have exr:lusive J orr cr t^. crnsider the evidence with a view to maintain discitlirLe. -l her are invested \yith the discretion to imposc appro )riite f^{rnrshmentkeepingin viewthe} magnitude or^gravrty(,f t,te r is(onduct. The High Court/Tribunal, whilc erercisin3 're p rwer ofjudicial revie,, canlot normally subsfitutc its o,,n

¶71

' 1r99s;^{e scr: ; ,e}

¶72

AAR, J W.P.No.l4881ot2QO.]

¶73

¶74

conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishmcnt imposed by the disciplinary authority ar the appellate authorify shocks the conscience ol the High CourUTribunal, it would appropriately mould the reliei, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authorio/ to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten rhe litigation, it may itselq in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof...."

¶75

7 In Depol Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah v. P. Gangarajti, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, observed as

¶76

follows:

¶77

"It is true that lhis CourL in its certiorari jurisdiclion, does nol^qcl in appellqte jurisdiction but acts only in a superuisory cdpacity. ll is fqirty settled thal il cannot review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determinqtion of the Tribunal is based.....

¶78

lt is well seuled thot a finding could be sqid to be perverse only if it can be held lhat no redsonqble man, in lhe /acts and ciratmstances of the case, would reach to that conclusion qs reached by the lower Court/Tribunal. There is no such/inding by the learned single Judge. Findings based upon surmises and conjectures, no doubt, cannot be said to be the findings bosed upon evidence. But the queslion would be as to whether there is any evidence^qnd mqteriols on record and if so, whether the sqid mqterials and record were laken into considerdtion and the available evidence was properly appreciated by the Labour Court If the mdteridls qre not lqken into consideration and lhe evidence is nol properly appreciated by the Labour Coutt, the sqme is liable to be corrected by lhis Court in exercise of its certiordri jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia. But

¶79

'^{roos1zy elo ro54 (D.B)}

¶80

!".\R,.1 6 \ P lo 1.188 t oi 200,]

¶81

'1^{theprocess,lhis Court cannolsubstitule it: olrfio2;|tofi}

¶82

,nL' arrfie al a finding dlter goug into the evidence. "

¶83

Ther':firre, the finding of fact recorded 11 the Labour Court canr ot. be interfered with bv this Court r.'nd,:r Article 226 ol Cor stitution of India, merely because the cther side has filed a me no under Section 11-A of the Act, Nliorr:over', the respondent No.2 has died during pendency ol the pr€)sent Writ Petition anl his legal representatives are brouqLt c,n record Therefor,:, ro useful purpose would be achievetl, if the matter is remanCel back to the Labour Court for dec d ng afresh at this lenglh rf period

¶84

Ilavir Lg regard to the above, this Courl dor:s no! find any

¶85

merit rn the present Writ Petition.

¶86

10.^'Ihjs Mrit Petition is accordingly disn.risse<l

¶87

Even though the learned counsel for ttr: ri:spondent Nos.3 to 5 has stated that the respondent No.2 is entitled to 25%o of t'a( k wages and other statutory benefits,, lhe scope of the present \Vrit Petition is very limited, as, thr' r€jspondent

¶88

No.2/emplc yt:e has not preferred any Writ Petitirtn chailenging

W.P No 14881 of 200a

the impugned award dated 19.07.2003 passed by the Labour

¶94

Court. However, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are permitted to

¶95

make a representation to the petitioner company seeking back wages and other attendant benefits, ifthey are so advised. On such representation being made, the authority concerned ofthe petitioner company shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶96

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶97

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶98

SD/-T.JAYASREE /,TRUE COPY// ASSISTANTEEGISTRARqD

¶99

SECTION bFFICER

¶100

To,

¶101