Allowed

Novopan Industries Limited v. S. Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC24 Mar 2023WP/1979/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The court quashed the direction to reinstate the retired workman to the petitioner's service in part, noting the industry is closed. However, the award awarding back wages and attendant benefits remains intact

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part. The award is set aside to the extent of reinstatement, but back wages and attendant benefits remain; the respondent may file an application with the concerned aut

Novopan Industries Limited Vs S. Krishna… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1979 OF 2004

¶7

Between

¶8

NOVOPAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, lDA, Phase-ll, Patancheruvu Medak District 502 139. Rep by Personnel Manager

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

S. KRISHNA MURTHY, S/o. Somaiah, H.No.1'1-81, Shantinagar, Pantancheruvu, Medak District

¶12

Labour Court-ll, Chandra Vihar Building MJ Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for recorqs from the second respondent Labour Court in lD No. 85 of 1999 dt 31-10-2003 and^quash the same

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 2598 OF2O04)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased suspend the operation of the Award in lD No.85 of 1999 dt 31-'10-2003^pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI T KISTAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR Thetourt made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶19

WRIT PETITIO N No.1979 ot 2OO4

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Challenging tne Award dated 31.10.2003, passed in LD.No.B5 of 1999, by the learned Labour Court-II, Hyderabadrespondent No.2, the petitioner industry has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶22

The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

¶23

The respondent No.1 workman was working as a Personnel Manager of the petitioner industry and respondent No.1 was appointed as Trainee Security Guard vide order dated 01.04.1982. Thereafter, the respondent No.l was transferred to Hyderabad Branch Office at Begumpet. Vide order dated 13.07.1998, the respondent No.1 was transferred to Chennai Sales Office on promotion as Security. Inspector. As the respondent No.1 failed to join duty at Chennai, a telegram was sent by the authorities asking him to report to duty at Chennai immediately and a follow up letter was also issued on 12.08.1998 stating that his name has been entered in the attendance register but he is absenting to duty. The said letter dated 12.08.1998 has been returned with a postal endorsement

__-

"Continuously absent.,. A notice of enquiry dated 09.09.1998 was sent to the respondent No.1, but he has reFused to receive the same. The same was communicated to the Sales Office, chennai, and therefore, the authority concerned has dismissed the respondent No.1 from service vide order dated 13.10.1989.

¶28

Chaltenging the said order dated 13.10.1989, the respondent No.1 filed I.D.No.gs of 1999, before the respondent No.2 seeking to reinstate him with back wages. Vide award dated 31.10.2003, the Labour Court has allowect the I.D. by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 13.10.19g9 and directing the petitioner industry to reinstate the respondent No.1 into service in the Sales Office, Hyderabad, with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner industry has flled the present writ petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner industry has stated that the impugned award dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.8S of 1999 is the one without jurisdiction. If the respondent l,lo.1 had any grievance, he would have availed his remedy at Chennai but not at Hyderabad. Moreover, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶30

!I t

¶31

¶32

petitioner industry has been closed as it has become^sick. Further, the lear'ned counsel^has stated^{that respondent No.1} has retired from service in^{the month of October, 2017.} Therefore, the impugned^{Award dated 31.10.2003passed by the} Labour Court directing^{the petitioner industryto reinstatethe} respondent No.1 into^{service cannotbe implemented at this} stage and ultimately,^{has prayedthis Court to allow the present} Writ Petition.

¶33

Per contra, the^{learned counsel appearingon behalf of the} respondent No.1^{has vehemently opposed thevery} maintainability of^{the presentwrit petition and stated that the} petitioner industry has^filed the^{presentwrit petitiononly with a} view to harass the^{respondent No.1. The findings recordedby} the Labour Court^{in the Award impugned dated 31'10'2003are} pedectly in consonance with^{the settled principles of law' The} learned counsel^{has stated that without any fault of the} respondent No.1, the^{respondentNo.1 was transferredto} Chennai.^{Even though the respondentNo.1 was not eligible for} any^{promotion, he was given promotion only for the purposeof} shifting him from Hyderabad.^{The learned counsel has stated} that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of

¶34

¶35

combined High Court of Andhra pradesh, in W.A.M.p.N o.6216 of 2005 in W.A.No.42g of 2004,the respondent No.1 has been paid wages under Section 17_B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel has further stated fl that the Labour courr, Hyderabad, nu, ,"..,r^.o;-.':l_:t"t* Patancheru, Medak Disrrict and the .J;':',.T:;:,.;;ror vt qlsmlss,l was served on the respondent No.1 at orr,^^.^-'' Further' it is srated thar the Factory or tire petitl^:"::i:: roner is at Hyderabad and the respondent No.1 has retired frorn sar.,;^^ ,_':='"*o tut't" in october' 2077' therefore, the direction issued by,i' Labour court to the petitioner industry to reinstate ,r,u .uroon,' to'' into service in the sales office at Hyderabad cannot ou'"nt to'o"uo with at this point of time' Even though this Court nu. I initially passed o=:^u r d^s er ss with regard to the reinstaternent of the ,"."^^r^:.-:, No'l into seryice, the Division Bench of tt," .omoinespondent High court of Andhra pradesh has disposed oF *.o.ro."o 1s.03 2oos modiryins ;'j ".:,':::r";:"rriudsment dared u"t'u2'2004 passed by the rearned sing,e Judge ,,. 1,.-^r, directing the petitioner indusrry to compry with 17-B *rn""rln""

¶36

Having regard to above circumstances and the fact that the petitioner indu stry has alr.eadl geen closed, and the

¶37

¶38

respondent No.1 has also retired from service, this Court is of the opinion that ends oF^justice would be met if the^impugned Award dated 31.10.2003,^passed by the Labour Courtⁱⁿ I.D.No.B5 of 1999, is set aside to the extent of directing^the petitioner industry for reinstatement of the respondent No' 1 into service in the Sales Office at Hyderabad.

¶39

Therefore, the Award dated 31.10.2003^passed by^the Labour Court in I.D.No.B5 of 1999^is set^{aside to the extent of} directing the^petitioner industry to^{reinstatethe respondentNo'1} into service. However, the^{impugnedaward passedin respect of} awarding of full back wages^{and attendant benefits shallremain} as it is. It is open to the respondent^{No.1 to file an appropriate} application before the authority^{concerned of the petitioner} industry in respect of^payment of full^{back wages and attendant} benefits, and the same shall be^{considered on its own meritsby} the authority concerned of the^{petitionerindustry.}

¶40

To the extent indicated above, the Writ Petition^{is allowed} in part.

¶41

Miscellaneous^p etitions, if any^pendin shall stand closed,

¶42

ThatRuleNisihasbeenabsoluteasabove.WitnesstheHon'bletheGhief .lr.ti." SRI UJJAL^{BHUYAN,on this FRIDAY,the TWENTH FOURTHof} MARCH, Two Thousand and^THREE.

¶43

Dl- r.!.IE F ElUt l! sIf'Y ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i,t sEcTloN bFrrceR

To,

The Labour Court-ll, Chandra Vihar Building MJ Road,, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRl. S RAVINDRANATH, Advocate.tOpuc]

¶48

One CC to SRl. T KISTA|AH, Advocate.tOpUCl State of Tetangana at 4. Hyderabad.[OUT]Two CCs to the Gp FoR LAB.UR, i;;ti-Coii,fo. tt " 5. Two CD Copies SB

%K-

( (

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410312023

.<br>s
s*
<br>

ORDER

WP.No.1979 ot 2004

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶57

g
,l<br>rgu'6
g%e

Novopan Industries Limited v. S. Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Novopan Industries Limited v. S. Krishna Murthy

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

Dr.Fareeda Begum, Hyderabad and Another Vs the Statwe of Ap., Higher Education Dept., and 7 Others

R.D. Employees State Insurance Corp. Vs C.G.Indu.Tribu.Cum Labour Court AND5 Ors.

S. Arjun Kumar, Secunderabad. Vs the Dist. Medical and Health Officer and Another

Syed Yunus, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Pasuvula Satyanarayana, Nizamabad Dist. Vs the Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nizamabad and 2 Others

Solam Narendar Vs Shri K.Nagaraju