Dismissed

P. Janardhan Reddy, Medak District v. the Depot Manager, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC20 Apr 2023WP/17592/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that maintained the petitioner's removal from APSRTC service for negligence. The court found no merit in the challenge as the petitioner failed to prove discrepancies in his service records and did not appear before adjudicating authorities, and thus refused to interfere with findings of fact.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and miscellaneous applications were closed.

P. Janardhan Reddy, Medak District Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ I

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE AABHISHEK^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17592 OF²⁰⁰⁶

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Janardhan Reddy, S/o. P. Narsa Reddy, Occ:^{Ex. Conductor, E.No108377, R/o'} PostNarayanaraopet,SiddipetMandal,MedakDistrict. ...'ET.T'ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

.l . The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Bus Depot, Hakhimpet, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Labour Court-|,^{2'd Floor, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad,} Rep bv its Presiding officer

¶12

...RES'.NDENTS

¶13

Petrtion under Atlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction^{particularlyone in the nature of} WRIT OF CERTIORARI,^quash the^{impugnedaward dated 30-11-2005 made in} I D. No. 7 of 2003,^published on 03-3-2006^{in not grantingany reliefas well as in} holding the domestic enquiry conducted^{by the 1st respondentas valid vide order} daled 24-1-2OO5 as valid, as^{unjust, in violationof principlesof natural} iustice,ⁱⁿ violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution^{of lndia and consequently direct} the first respondent to^{reinstatementthe petitioner into service along with all} consequential benefits in the interest^{of justice and fairplay.}

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI V. NARASIMHAGOUD}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, S-C. FOR TSRTC}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2:GP FORLABOUR}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

'iltu II()\ I]rt.u sRt .,t,s-t.t(.E A. ABiltsil[.K IU,t)t)y _t Iil't t,t.'t I't^.ION N o.17592 ot 2006

¶19

ORDT]R:

¶20

(_'[:rllcnr ir.g thc ururrti darcd ]0. I I 2005 l)asscd l)y the learned [,rcsit rrlr Ol'llccr. l.uhour- (.ourr_1, z\nrlhra prrrdesh, Hydcra'a<1. i, IrrtlLrstri:rl [)is,Lrrc No.7 of.2001, th(, grelitioner has frled llte pr ,,scpt \'r.rt I,ctiti9l.

¶21

I_car,crl c()r.tr)scl l.r. tlrc pctilio,cr has stale(l th:rt thc Labour (-ourt 'rhilc p;15,.i111 111. irlpuglc,-l aulrd dated 30. I I.2005 cli: rr ssirrg I.l).\o 7 ol. l00.t. has lailc<l tc sec that thc petitioncr its ie r.\ ctl rr itit u colt_r ol. thc c hariit, : hc,:t but was nol plr-r Lri lln\ (,|1.\,r ttrrril_r trr tlclcn.l hirts:lf. l,he learned coLlrlS(. lr:rs sl:rrct j ll)ut c\ce pl nrek ing :, bald lr lcg,atiOn that thc petiti( r)(rr ll:i\ Ir,()rlu...c(l htrgus SSC. lcr.t llcat:. no other rnaicrial ,ius pllr..,cti cirltcr. lrclirrc t rc ri s,riplinarl, authority ,rr b. irrc th., I .rlrour. ( otr1.1 1.1111 tlrc \r,, a.d ,latcd 30. t I 200i ott ,s-'rJ lt,r llt.. Ilrlrortr (.orrrl rfi thc removal cll'tltc prr litio rrc r ljirnt Sr'l-\ lCe t\ COntt itf_\ trl llg 1""y; establislrcti 1't,^ctPtcs trl lr\ lll(l thc pr.inciPlcs rrl. 111 111n1

¶22

:\AR.I W P.No l7:92 oI 2006

¶23

¶24

justicc and rhcrclore, has pray.ed this Court to set aside the Award ol'thc Labour Court datcd 30.11.2005 and also the rcnroval ordcr datcd 12.10.1990

¶25

Pcr contra, thc lcarned counsel appearing on behalf olthc rcspondcnt ('orporation has stated that the petitioncr was sen'cd rr ith thc chargc shcet and was given show cause noticc to subrnit his cxplarration, but, as a matter of fact, thc pclitioncr did not bothcr to appear before the disciplinar-"autlrolit-r', arrd c'u,e rr bc[orc the Labour Court, the petitioner has neithcr crarninccl hirnscl['rror filed any document to disprovc the alle !latiorrs lcvelled against him, and on behalf of thc resprrncle ut^{('orltorati<tn.} llxs.M.l to M-26 were marked.^'lhat thc pctitic'rncr lras nor liled any proof to show that SS(' Ccrtillcatc produccd by hirn is a genuine one, therefore, thc iutpugrrcd arrarrl clatcd^-i0.1 1.2005 passed by the Labour Court lt) l.l).\o.7 ol' l()0-'i canrlol bc intcrfered with by this Courr urrclcr ,,\r'ticlc ll6 ot'rhe^{('onsritution} of India and the lcarncd corrnscl ltas pra-r r-cl tltis^(irurt to disntiss the prcsent \ rit I)ct it io n _

¶26

3 ! l. ',')2 ol 201)a)

¶27

A Pcrtrsr'^olthc t lll putrtccl^{au:irtl dalcd l)lI2005} passed bY^{thc I rLrour(-ottrt tttlndtrstrial [)isptrrcNo 7 ol'2003} as rvell^{as the iocLrnlcrrts tllcd br thc rcsl-riitld"llt (lrrporatlon} shows^{that thc p:titionclcxccllt} k 1 balrl^{a llc ratio:r that} he u'as^{llot pr(r riJedanl'' opporttllllt\to subnrit his c iP laratiorr',} has not^filccl n/ proo{^{tt'r shou thltt SS( ccrtiljclrt" plcduced} rcr is not^{lt btrqtr: trtlc l:r clr b'llbrc tl'c Labour} by thc Pctitio Court.^thc Pe^{tioncr has tltlt Prodtrccdarrrclc,ct"ttrltrt' rltlr SSC} rclr irrg^{ott. u hcrclrs.t'ht t':sponclcnt} Certificate.^{o''r'hich hcrs} ras ntarkctl^{thc cllrrrg.c shcct' crttlttit"' -c1lod and} Corporat^ton noticcs scrl^{d on thc Pcttttttttet} lls lrs.\l I^{to \1.1(r. It is} Sccotlclltrr^{\cltorrl ( crtillcate} pertinent to l.,te^{111n1| .1.\l.i} t\ u ith I( tr ll^'rtr :-i 6<t'11 bu1 the fited belore^{.he L.abotrr'('trtrrt} lirLrrrtl llrttt^{tllc s;ricl R'rl N rmbcris} authoritics^{c r enquirl . harc} not tallf irrl^{with thc rcc()r'Ll\ r-rl tltc Ilt'rtttl olSi:cotl<1ary} IS qrr utltt,. ctl b1^thc l]ducaLiol,^{l{r,dcrabatl. \ocr ttlcttcc} llrer belorc^{tllc I.rtlrtrttt( ttttrt t'r bcl''r.ct lis ( ourt} petltlollc^I to slloVn rh^{t SS(' ('cItillcltcclltirrtcdhr llirrr itt 'tctlttttlc onc} Irt thc a[rsr^{.tt:c ol lttlr cr itlctte c Itr :ltort tll:ltr lrr' i cti ioncrIlas}

n, *o ,r.r, "l]X;i

I I t

[aken an;., srcps r() call lirr thc records frorn SSC Board or produccd ccrrilicd cop,y of.SSC Certificare relied on by hiry, this ('our1 callnol s() tnto the lindings -l'uo n < question of fact.s arrived ar b1. the discinli,,,.., . . ar]'autho.ity as well as the Labour Court. fhereri,r", ,r, ; , ('ourt does not find any merit in the presetlt Writ l)ctitiorr rtarranting its intcrGrence.

¶32

T'his {/rir lrctition is accordirruly dismissed.

¶33

Misccllirrrcous ,pplicari.rrs , it anypending, shall stand closed.^'['hcrc shlrll he no order as [o costs.

¶34

ttrRt)E copytt a..,srffift;s$rE.FH -

¶35

To,

¶36

ecroru?i1--rcen

¶37

1 one cc to SRr V NARASIMHA G..,,.\ ^ 2

¶38

GOUD, Advocare [opucl one cc " a^, ,roo,Ia*',/HA 3. Iyr#ffi l*fi^{;T;): "fi} ,' X"^jI ;':;:':::" 4. Two cD copies -'"vr rrrc otate of Telangana at

MP SBL{

FI!G,H COURT

DATIiD:ll010412023

/a :-l iE .S
/.
/
t..
t
)
19 JUt{ 2m trl
ORDER

¶43

WP.No.17592 of 2006

¶44

DISMISSING THE V'[IF:IT PETITION WlIHOUT COSTS

¶45

1
--.-
z-.l I o6 23 -\a
2 ->
St.-.r -a- r. <br><br>

¶46

P. Janardhan Reddy, Medak District v. the Depot Manager, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Janardhan Reddy, Medak District v. the Depot Manager, Hyderabad and Another

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. Venkateshwarlu Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

R.Sanjeeva Rao Vs TheChairman and Managing Director

Bashaboina Kaushik Kumar Vs Sri P.Kiran Kumar

Syed Doulat Hussain, Hyd. Vs Ceo, Apswb, Hyd. and 3 Ors.

Bharat Dynamics Ltd., Vs The Labour Coaurt_I

Bandi Kumaraswamy and 2 others Vs Mateti Rajamouli and another