Dismissed

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

Telangana HC23 Mar 2023WP/20961/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated an employee compulsorily retired for misconduct. The complaint underlying the proceedings had been withdrawn, yet disciplinary actions continued. The court held no infirmity warranted Article 226 interference and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Null

R.D. Employees State Insurance Corp. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³¹⁶⁷ I

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD^{DAY OF IUARCH} ' TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 20961 OF 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

Employees' State lnsurance Corporation,^{represented by its RegionalDirector,} Re{iiorial Office, Andhra^{Pradesh, 5-9-23,Hill Fort road Hyderabad-500063.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Central Government lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,^represented by its Presiding Officer, M.J.^Road, Near^{Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad}

¶12

Mr. J.P. Eliyazer, R/o SRT-56,^Raisala Gadda,^MushiraLa_d, lyderabad 3. The Additional Commissioner-cum-Appellate^Authority, ESl.^Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, IVlinistry of Labour,^Government of^{lndia, Kotla road,} New Delhi-1 10002.

¶13

Smt. Vinodirii, Superintendent, ESI Corporation A.P.,^{Region Office 5-9-23,} Hill Fort road, Adarsh Naga, Hyderabad.

¶14

J. Ram Prasad, Manager, Local Officer, ESI Corporation,^{Chikkadapally,} Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt. Santa Bai, Penon, ESI Corporation, A.P. Region Regional Officer, 5-923, Hill Fort road, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

(The Respondents No.3 to 6 are not necessary parties to the Writ Petition.)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 a Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Cdrtiorari, and quash the order daled 28-2-2002-in LCID No.11712001 after calling for the records from the file of Central Government lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: I OF 2002(WP P. NO: 26235 OF 2002)

¶19

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 to suspend the order dated 28-2-2OO2 in LCID No.11712001^passed by the Central Government lnduskial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad. Counsel foi the Petitioner: SRl. B.G. RAVINDRA REODY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI^N. GANGADHAR

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETiIION No.20961 of 2002

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Challenging the Awarri dated 28.02.2002, passed by the responclent No.1 - Central Government Indushial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, in lndustrial Dispute L.C.l.D.No.117 of 2001, the petitioner - Employees' State insurance Corporation^{has filed} the rrresent writ peiition.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner - Corporation^{that the} lespondent No.2, while working as Record^{Sorter in the local} office of the petitioner - Corporation,^{harassedand misbehaved} with one Smt. K. Shantabai, Peon. Based on the comPlaint^given by the said Shantabai, charge sheet dated 31.03.1999^{was issuedto} the respondent No.2. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.2. As the charge levelled against the respondent No.2 was proved, the Disciplinary Authority uide order dated 04.07.2000 has imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by 10 stages permanently with cumulative effect. Aggtieverd by the same, the respondent No.2 has filed an

¶27

appeal. Thc Appellate Authority - Additional Commissioner

¶28

¶29

(P&A) aide order dated 20.06.200L enhanced^{the penalty imposed} on the respondent No.2 from reduction^{cr. pay by 10 stages} permanently with cumulative effect to 'Jrat of^compulsory retirement. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, the lespondent No.2 was compulsorily retired from service on 20.06.2007. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2007, the respondent No.2 had approached the labour Court and filed L.C.I.D.No.117 of 2001. The Labour Court has passed the impugned Award dated28.02.2002 directing reirutatement of the respondent No.2 and observing that the respondent No.2 will not be entitled to back wages; that his pay will siart at R.2,650/ -; that the period in between the implementation of the Award and his retirement shall be treated as leave without pay and that he will be entitled to continuity of service. Challenging the Award dated 28.02.2002, the petitioner-Corporation has filed the present writ petition.

¶30

The leamed counsel for the petiticner-Corporation has stated that the petitioner is not an lndustry, and therefore, L.C.I.D.No.117 of. 200-1. filed by the respondent No.2 was not

¶31

¶32

marntainabie. That both the Disciplinary Authority and the Apueliate Authority having come to the conclusion that [he aliegation of misconduct against the respondent No.2 was proved have imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, the Labour Court ought not to have directed for reinstatement of the respondent No.2. That W.P.No.3258 of 2003 filed by the respondent No.2 against the very same impugned Award was dismrssed for default on 18.12.2015. The learned counsel has further stated that the remedy available to the respondent No.2 is to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, and therefore, prayed this Court to quash the impugned Award and allow the present writ petition.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has stated that the impugned Award dated 28.02.2002 passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the Regulations of the Employees'State Insurance Corporation and also the orders of tlris Court and does not require any interference under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

¶35

Admittedly, in the present case, one Smt.K. Shantabai, who was working as Peon in the local office of the petitioner Corporatiory has given a complaint against the respondent No.2 stating that the respondent No.2 has harassed and rnisbehaved with her. Based on the said complaint, enquiry was initiated against the respondent No.2. Even though the said Shantabai had withdrawn the said complaint voluntarily, the Disciplinary Authority has gone ahead with the enquiry. Since nothing was revealed in the enquiry with regard to the allegations made in the complaint and as the said Shantabai had withdrawn the said complaint, the Disciplinary Authority has recommended for transfer of the respondent No.2 to another place. Subsequently, based on the preliminary enqulry report, the Disciplinary Authority had transferred the respondent No.2 to another place and issued a charge memo. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority oide the order dated O4.O7.2OOO has imposed the penalty of stoppage of ten increments permanently with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 has preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority oiite the ordgr--dated 20.06.2007 has enhanced the penalty to that of

¶36

¶37

¶38

compulsory retirement. Chailenging the same, the respondent No.2 has fiieci I-.C.I.D.No.117 of 2007. However, the Labour Court, duly taking into consideration the fact that the complaint given by the said Shantabai was withdrarvn and that the Appellate Authority was carried away by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms.Vishaka o. State of Rajasthanl and not appreciated the facts of the case in proper perspective had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, has passed the impugned Award directing reinstatement of the respondent No.2, without back wages and with starting pay of Rs.2,650/-

¶39

Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ

¶40

petition, it is to be noted that the writ petition is of the year 2002 and it was admitted on 23.10.2002, and therefore, it would not serve any purpose if a finding with regard to the validity or

¶41

otherwise of the Award passed by the Labour Court on the question of jurisdiction is given at this juncture. Moreover, as

1 7997 (nS{:384

-...-

seen from the record, the complainar-rt had already withdrawn the

¶46

original complaint and there was nothing on record for the authoriHes to proceed with the complaint. The authorities, instead of dropping the disciplinary proceedings after the complaint has been withdrawry for the reasons best known have

¶47

continued the same and the same cannot be countenanced.

¶48

7 For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Award does not suffer any infirmity or illegaliry warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the

¶49

Constitution of lndia.

¶50

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous

¶51

applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed. There

¶52

shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

SD/. N. CHANORA^SEKHAR ASSISTANTFEGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// sEcrt& oFFtcER

¶54

To, 1. One CC^to SRl.^{B.G. RAVINDRA REDDY Advocate[OLUCI} i. il; 6csi"- oiloi^{t-auoui, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad. IOUTI r. iii'-""c-Cr siqt.^{tt'. ceruoeonAR Advocate[oPUC]} 4. Two CD Copies

CHR

w\z-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310312023

ORDER

W.P.No.20961 of 2002

Ar
^a-<br>s-
<br>tt_l

¶63

DISMlSSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

Pr[O,

¶65

rst^s \c--g'

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Ms.Guduru Rukmini, D/o. G.Seeta Rama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pasula Chenna Reddy (Died) and 4 others Vs Sri K.S. Srinivasa Raju, I.a.S., and 3 others

Ch.Yadagiri Vs Northern Power Distribution Company and Another

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

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

Amgoth Venkateswara Rao, Khammam, and 4 Otrs. Vs the Ap.Genco.,Hyderabad, and 5 Otrs.