Partly allowed

R.R.Prasad,Girimajipet,Warangal v. the Hon`Ble Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Telangana HC17 Apr 2023WP/23022/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an Industrial Tribunal award denying back wages to the petitioner for delay. The court held back wages should only be denied for the period after the review petition was dismissed, not for time spent prosecuting litigation.

What did the court decide?

The award denying back wages is modified to grant wages and attendant benefits from the date of the order of removal till the date the review petition was dismissed.

R.R.Prasad,Girimajipet,Warangal Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23022 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

R.R.Prasad, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 44 years, E.No.301417, Occ: Cond ucto r, N o.9-2-205, Gi rimalipet, Warangal

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Hon'ble, lndustiral Tribunal-Cum-Labour, rep.by its Presiding Officer, Warangal, Warangal District

¶12

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, W arangat-2 Depot, Warangal District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents herein by issuing a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the Award dated 9.6.2005 in lD.No.84/2002 published on 24.9.2005 vide G.O.RI.No.1572 dated 30.7.2005 on the file of 1st respondent in so far as not granting attendant benefits and back wages as perverse illegal, unjust, contrary to law and also in violation of Artlcles 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia.

¶15

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 2904/. OF 2006)

¶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 to dispense with the filing the original award in lD.No.84 ol 2OO2 dated g.6.2005 published vide G.O.Rt.No .1572 dated 30.7.2005 on the file of 1st respondent.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. SRIDHAR RAO

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

.tIII.- HO .I BI,F] SIi.I JUS'I'ICF], A. ABHISHEI.: IIEI)DY I^{RI'l'PIlI'ITIONNo.2} 3022 of²⁰⁰⁶

¶21

ORDI,]I{:

¶22

QLrr-'stir^{nirrg the Arvard} dated 09.06.2()05^prLrserl by thc |cspoll([-lil N o I InilLrstrial Tlibunal-cum-l-abou I Co,rrt, relr bv its I'rcsir ing Officcr, Warangal, in I.D.No.34 oi 2002. insolirr rrs no ltriLnting attenclant beneflts and baci wares. tllc pctitioncr Irlr t: lcd thc prcsent Writ Petition.

¶23

,,\ ltenr a r,l the Au,ald dated 09.06.200-5 pasrsec by thc rcslrorrdcr t \ r. I l'ritrrrnal in I.D.No.84 of 2002 shc,'r,s 1,.,, ,,,. I'r'ilrLrrrrrl rvlril: -lisposing ol'the said LD.No.84 of^'.,.1t02 has nrit grirrrtetl mrv f a,: k \'llgcs to the petitioner only on lhe ground that thele is del.ry/laches on the part of the J,t:ritiotrer- in approlch irru I rc rcsponrlcnt No.l Tribunal.

¶24

l. \s secn l'rrn 1hc rvlit affidavit, the order ol'temovari is dated t)l.r)(r.i9')li. Thcleaticr. the petitioner has pr:l'errctl altpcal. ul,ich rils clecitied on 17.04.1999 and subr;:qui,ntl1.,.t rcvierl petitio r ri,rrs lllcd and thc same was also d r;rnisscd orr

¶25

AAR, J W.P No 23022^{of 2006}

¶26

¶27

05.07.2000.^{That after dismissal of the ReviewPetition'there} was a delay of^{ahnost 2 years by the petitioner in approaching} the respondent^{No.l Tribunal. Even if the reasongiven by the} Tribunal that^{thc petitionerhas approached the Tribunal with} delay is taken^{to be correct, the same can be from the date of} disn-rissal ol'^{the revicw till the date of approaching the} Tribunat but^{not the period spent in litigation i'e'' from the} clate ol the order^{ol removal till the date of thc order oI} disrnissal of^{thc review petition' In view of the sarnc'this} Court is of^{tlrc opiniorr that once the respondent No' l Tribunal} has sct aside^{the orderof removaldated 01'06' 1998' it ouglrt to} havc grantecl back^{wages to the petitionerfor the period which} was spent by^{ttre petitioner in prosecutingthe appealas wellas} the rcview^{petition.Tl-ratinsofaras the period spent by thc} pctitioner in approaching^{the LabourCourt from the date ol} clisurissal of^{the Rcview Petitionis concemed'this Courtis not} inclincd to^{grallt any relief to the petitioner as there is uo} proper cxlllanation^{for the dclay of almost two (2) years'}

¶28

.,llt .l \ I \1).r r.) ljr -,0 )fr

¶29

¶30

IIav ng rcgard to the above, the ordcr of rlrc Labour Court dlti'd⁽ ).06.2005 in I.D.No.S4 ol'2002 n) l( n)'ng thc back u'ages tt the petitioner is modified to tlrc cx r:rrt tlurl the pctitiorrcr. is r nr itled to the back wages anrl oth(r' atlendant bcrrellts li()nr he date of the ordcr of removrrl rill re rlate ot 1hc ortlcr- -rn vrrich the revie'*, pctition was (lisrlirjse,l.^'l hc autlrorities are directed to calculatc the back rvagcs l ar rrl.rlc to lhe petitiorrel ct' tire period indicated above antl pl^., tltr. sanrc as erpcclittous y, AS possible, prel'erably, rvithin re r- otl o tir,clvc (ll) rvr:[:s ti'om today.

¶31

,\ccorclir g,y, this Writ Petition is partly.rlkrrv:ri

¶32

N'liscr:lla reous applications, il any penrling. sl lll srancl

¶33

closecl.^'l-here s ra ll be no order as to costs.

¶34

That the Rule Nisi^{ha6been madeabsolute as above'}

¶35

Witness THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE.UJJAL3lIUYAN' on this} rvronuav,'i'rti"5""""t -"in^{dayof April, TwoThousandandTwertyl hree'}

¶36

I I I

¶37

:;I)/-T.JAYASREE ASSISI',O.NT^REGISTRAR

¶38

//TRUE COPY// st:llTloN brrtcen

¶39

To, 1 The Hon't)le,^{rdustiralTribunal-Cum-Labour,rep-b.rits Pre..,idin3 offict:r,} Waranoal We^{a lgal District} ApSnrc, warangal-2^{Depot' waran!:r Dis'rict} z i ii?it"",-t ore CC to ir.,rl^Sr .lI "q;i,^{Sridhar Rao, Advocate [oPUUl} ; ii;;66t 1" t^{p ro, Liooui'Hiln Courtfor'theSta'te of rel'r^3ana [oU-]} 5. Two^{CD ()oPits}

TJ S\' q

HIGH COUR''

DATED:1710t 12023

1 i?rilt$

ORDER

WP.No.23022 of 2006

PARTLY ALL )WING THE WRIT PETITICIN WITHOUT CO STS.

¶47

&n> -------'azr\alP

R.R.Prasad,Girimajipet,Warangal v. the Hon`Ble Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.R.Prasad,Girimajipet,Warangal v. the Hon`Ble Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Warangal and Another

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

Syed Lateef Ali Azmi Vs A.P. Electricity Board

K. Janga Chary Vs Smt v. Sunitha

Sd. S Jani, Vs Sri Munisekhar

P. Janardhan Reddy, State of Tamil Nadu, Vs the Managing Director Tamilnadu Handlooms, Chenni, and 1

Smt. Kadari Suma, Vs Sri Borra Ramesh

M. Maruthi Sharma, Adilabad. Vs the Member Secretary, Aptwreis, Hyderabad and 2 Others