The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The court modified the back wages from 50% to 25%, noting the delay, but otherwise upheld the reinstatement order.
Reinstatement with continuity of service granted but back wages reduced from 50% to 25% to ensure finality of litigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3167 J
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITI ON NO: 234/,6 0F 2005
Between:
The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Bus Depot, Nalgonda District
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDdIITS
Petition under Articre 226 ol the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,,the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned Award dated 2s-10-2004 passed in l.D No. 0612002 on the fire of the Hon'bre Labour court-ilr, Hyderabad, bywhich the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent into gervice with continuity of servi.ce, 507o back wages and without attendant benefits.
LA. NO: 1 OF 200s WPMP. NO:30103 oF 2005)
Petition under section l5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased stay the operation of the lmpugned Award dated 25-10-2004 passed in l.D. No. o6t2oo2on the file of Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt GADDAM SRIN|VAS, SC FOR TSRTC Counsel forthe Respondent No.1:SRl P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Gp FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HOI'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY
'VRITPETITION No.23446 of 2OO5
ORDER:
This W:-it F :titi,rn under Article 226 of the Constitl.rtio-r ofIndia is filed by the pet tion er-Corporation, seeking the lol^ou irg r-'lief
"lo issue an pprapriote writ,order ardirectton,nto-epartct'larL| in the natLl.re oJ u,.it of mandamus, setting aside the t,npiLgn.(iaLL ard dated 25 10., O04passed in LD No.06/ 20a2 orrthe Jle t:f tl eHor'ble Labour Courl 'll Hyderabad, by wluchthe petitionatutts c'lrecte 7 to reinstate the espondent into service ufih continuitg of sertrL:,e,.i1Vo back u,aqes ud u.tithout attendatt benefits andpasss tc<sup>other order or crder:., '
I
2
AAR.{T w.p. No.23446 of 2obs
tallying with the officiar record and that it was not issued in the name of respondent No.l and it belongs to Sri R.Babu Rao S/o. Krishna Rao, who passed the examination (compartmental) and that it was bogns certificate. Basing on the said letter dated O3.O4.1ggg, the petitioner-Corporation suspended the respondent No. I on 22.O4.1999 and issued charge sheet with the following charge:
"For hauing submitted. , a ssc Memo bearing No'2692o4/ March' 1979 before the serection uhich met for the selection of conductors 1ro^ o<. olo^^ittee to 25'01'1997 and got selected uide proceedings dr.21.or.1;1997 the Add.itional uhich uas found bogas on uerification bg "orn, ".)n, to the commissioner for Gout. Exans, A.p. Hvderabad.. ,"ni'"'o* conductorosp-au"in;'o'::r"y";;;:r:"::r::;f r:;:r:l haue ch.eated the corporation and officiafs and. also hide the facts of under Aourpast Reg. educatlonal 29 (xu) onquali,ftcahons, 1 d (l xx t ) nf ,o"o-^ ^' ".*which is " nr"r" ^r"'"lr)"!, ii of APSRTc Emploaees (conduct) Regulations, 1963."
The respondent No.1 did not submit his explanation to the charge sheet and the departmental enquiry was ordered against him and even then the respondent No. I failed to attend the enquiry. Even though a copy of the enquiry notice was exhibited on the notice board, the respondent No.1 did not attend the enquiry and hence ex parte enquiry was conducted. After completion of enquiry and issuing show cause notice dated 2g.10.lggg, the respondent No.1 was terminated from service vide proceedings dated 1g.11.1999.
Ar\R, J \ t. I'io 2.1446 oi 2005
')
Challenging th same, the respondent No.1 rert:in filed
LD.No.06/2O02 tcfore the Labour Court-lll, Flyderz.:ad, and the Labour Court vic : a\r'ard dated 25. 10.2004 allow,:d lh( 1.D ry sett.ing aside the rermi ration order datt:d 18.1 1,199!' a.nc Cirocted the Corporation 1-o r instate the respondent No.1 he reinjn -o s;ervice as conductor s'ith ootrnuity of service and 50%()f bao < wages. The Labour Courl fur :k er held that the period of susl)ensr(,n shell not be counted for any r ther purpose and the respondent No. I herein is not entitled for attt nCant benefits. Aggrieved by the erwa:d dated 25.1O.2OO4 pass --<l in I.D.No.06/2002 by the Labo .: r' C :urt, the present Writ Peti ion is filed by the petitioner-Corporati:: r
4 AAR, J W.P. No.23446 of 2OOS
Ex.M.3-letter dated 03.it4.1999 issued by the Additional Joint Secretq.ry to Commissioner for Government Examinations, A. p, Hyderabad, has erroneously set aside the termination order dated 18.11.1999 and directed for reinstatement of the respondent No.1 into service with continuity of service and S0% of back wages. The learned Standing Counsel has stated that the said conditions imposed by the Labour Court are contrary to the judgment of the Honble Supreme court in Deepafi Gundu surwase a. Kranti Junlor Adhgapak Mahavidgara and otherst, wherein the Hon,bre Supreme Court has laid down the principies relating to back wages in case of reinstatement of an employee. Therefore, the learned Standing counser prayed this court to arow the writ petition, as prayed for
' 1zotl1 to scc 324
AAR, J V/ I'. No 23446 of 2005
5
has stated 1-hat the original SSC Marks Memo of the :,: spondent No. 1 was marke<l ar tlx. M. 1 before the Labour Court anri abs olutely, no evidence rva.s a lcluced by the petitioner-Corporatjon t,r disprove the contents of sai i Ex.M.1. Except producing the Ex. U 3-l jtter dated 03.04.1999, nc vritness was examined to prove the (:ont.ents. The learned cou ns€ ras stated that once the finciing o f lac,. has been recorded by th( L,abour Court, interference of this Hj5lir Ccurt under Article 226 ,t[ tl e Constitution of India does not arise :.nd ultimately, prayed this Cor rt to dismiss the present writ perition.
o
AAR, J W.P. No.23446 of 20OS
Labour Court held that Ex.M.1-SSCMemo isgenuine and the petitioner has not committed any misconduct to causeloss to the Corporation and to gain wrongfully. Moreover theCorporation has not taken any steps toprove that Ex.M. I-SSC MarksMemois a bogus or faLrricated document by either calling forthe original record from the Board of Secondary School Education or filingany other certified copy for the same Hall Ticketwith differentmarks or in any other person name. Therefore, no interferenceneed be made with regard to the findings of the Labour Court.
Gundu Sur:wase's case (supra), observed as follows:
38, TLe propositions ulhich can be culled out fromthe ctforementioned judgments are:
38.7. In cases of wronqful terminationof serutce, reinstatementuith continuitg of seruice and back utagesis ttenorrnal rule.
38.2, The aforesaidn"Llets subject to the iderthatwlti\e deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicatingautharitgor the court mdA take into consideratton the length of serviceof the emplogee/uorkman,the nature of mtsconduct, if any, foundproved againstthe emplogee/ uorkman, the ftnancial condition ofthe emploger and similar other factors.
38.3. Ordinailg, an emplogee otu)orkman uthose seruicesare termindted and who is desirous ofgetting backuages is requiredto eitler ptead or at least make a statementbeforethe adiudicating auttaitg or the courl of frstinstance tlTat he/ sheu)as not gainfullg emploged or uas emplogedon lesser wages.If the emploVerwantsto auoid pagment of futt back uages,tLen it has to plead dnd alsolead cogent euidence to proue thatthe emplogee/ workmanuas gainfullg enlploged and was getling utages eqtal to tlle wageshe/ sle was dranuing prior to the tennination oJ seruice Tfus is sobecause it is
j
7
Jr'.P llc.2.l44t of 200:)
settted lau' that lhe burden of proof oJ the eistence o_. a pantit.u[at factlies on the person who makes a positiue auerment ab),"t its eistence. It is a tdAs easier to proue a posittue fact thtan to prc ue c negatiue fact. Tl ,.re-fore, once the emplogee shows tha' he wz:: noi employed, t|rc o ru.'- lies on the emploger to speci.f.cal,a pleac ano proue that lhe er, plcAee was gainfullg employed and t tts gettlr q the same or substan ai lg simitar emolu me nt s.
38.4. The clses i.L u)hich the Labour Court/ Indust4al Tri rlei exerctses power [.der Section 11-A of the Industnat Disput(:: Act, 1947 and Jinds titat euen though the enE)iry held againsl the emplogee/,-uorkt zr is consistent uith the rules of nutural ,1i.-:tice and/ or ceft'.fied standlng orders, tf an/, but hotds thct the punishment wqs d sproporlionate to the misconduct feund pr))ed, then it util hal ? the d.iscretion not to award full bacl; t,to,1es. Houeuer, tf the L,.tbour Court/ Industial Tibunal fi ds 1u; the emplogee or ,uorl, n(rn is not at all guiltA of anA ntisconduct ar il.,c,l the empLoger had f |sred a false charge, then there L.otI be altple justifi.cation J)r a] ta"d of fuU back wages.
38.5, The cases n wlttch the competent coutl c)r tibLUL tl Jlnd; tlnt the emploqet has acted in gross uioletiotL ol the statutotLl praui:; )ns and/ or the princr ,Ies of natural Justlce ar ts guittg of ut,.tin,isu,.!l lhe emplogee ar u,)ort mq.n. then the courl or tribunaL concerned u| be fullg Justifiedin c recting pagment of futl back u,ages. In such (.c ries, the supeior cour s shouLd not exercise potuer under A)-trcle 221. or 136 of the amsh utiorL and tnterfere wlth the qward possed t U the Labour Court etc n',erelg because there is a possibility cf fcm rr g a different opinion ' n the entitlement of the employee/ wot kman :o get fubacku,ctqes r thrz emploAer's obligation to paA th. sc1me. rhe courts must ol1lai s keep in uieu that in the cases of wrongfut,/ tl <:gal termination oi ser tc,.,, lhe urongdoer is the employer and the suf..t rer is the emplotlee/ uc'rkman and there is no justifi.cation to gitt,, a premium to tlrc e) tptoger of his wrongdoings bA relieanll htm oj' the burden to pay to \e ernplogee/ u)orkman his dues tn the form <7' .full back utages."
Admittedly, in tlie l resent case, there was no plcading nor any statement made by t1 e respondent No.1, adverting to the fe .r:r. that he was not employe(l ar ) vhere else during the per.iod ()f relrr,l r'al from service and that he is entitled to receive the full 5ao< urlges. Moreover, no reasons have been given by the Labour (lourt ilr; to why 50% back wages are br:ing awarded, Horvever. havinq regzr:rl to the
8
ri<.
AAR, J W.p. No.234a6 of 2OOs
fact that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service and since more than lg years have elapsed from the date of hling of the writ petition, to give a quietus to the present litigation, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be mer if 50% back wages awarded by the Labour Court is reduced to 2}o/o back wages. Except for the above said modification, the rest of the impugned award dated 25.10.2004 passed in I.D.No.6/2 OO2 by the Labour Court remains intact.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. / / Witness THE HoN'Bt.E THE CHTEF JUSTTCE UJJ.4L BHU'AN, on this MoNoAy, THE TwENTy.E,ENTH DAyoF MARciTwo;HousAND AND TwENTyTHREE
SD/. T,JAYASREE ASSTSTANT REGPTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION6FFICER
To
1 2? iH'e[i".Sfl 1",!{SjoliigHfi [,1{e'isBfit??t*cropuc] Two CCs to Gp FoR LABoUR, High corrtiditi,E'ii.j. of Tetansana, a{ Hyderabad. [OUTI 4c Two CD Copies9n" 99to SRt p.SR|DHARRAO, Advocate IOPUCI PSK. LS
9
,
CC TODAY
HIGH COURT
DATED:2710312023
ORDER
I ? t !'i'i it ''
\i'
WP.No.23446 tf 2005
ALLOWING'I HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS. oo ffi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Labour Court's award reinstating an employee with continuity of service and full back wages.
Whether the Labour Court's award of 50% back wages requires modification when the employee made no specific averment regarding alternative employment.
Whether the impugned Labour Court award can be modified in the interest of justice to ensure a quietus to litigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepa Sundara Suravase v. Kranti Junior Advanced MahavidyalayaExplained¶60
Deepa Sundara Suravase v. Kranti Junior Advanced Mahavidyalaya
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Depot Manager, APSRTC
G. Dayakar Reddy
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad
A. Abhishek Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
