Partly allowed

N Narsimhulu, Hyderabad v. Depot Manager, Tsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC4 Sept 2023WP/27188/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified a Labour Court award dismissing an industrial dispute, directing reinstatement of a contract conductor dismissed for cash and ticket irregularities without back wages or continuity of service benefits.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement as conductor from date of receipt of copy of order without back wages, continuity of service benefits, or medical claim.

N Narsimhulu, Hyderabad Vs Depot Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27188 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

N Narsimhulu, S/o. Bandaiah, Aged about 41 years, Ex-Contract Conductor(C.918189), Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Miyapur-ll Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Miyapur-ll Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the award in lD No. 4 of 2016 d1.27 -03-2017 on the file the 2nd respondent herein and declare the award in dismissing of the said lD is bad, arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service attendant benefits and back wages.

¶15

Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI P. VENKATESWAR RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

i II

¶20

HON'BI.E SRI JUSTICE J. SREEN].VAS FIAo

¶21

Writ Petition No.27188 of 2Ol7

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This \r/rit Petitior-r is Iilc<[ scckins tlrr follos t-rg r.elief:-

¶24

"fo issue u turit or rtrrlt'r or tlin'ctiort riu.tr<, yt'.tric'u r.rlq one iq the nolLtr('t)f rtrit oJ'^()c:tliotttr ctLlli,tq litr lhe reo)r(ls reletint] 1o lllt, rtrt'urLl irr ID '' o . rl :(.t16 dt. 2'7-03 2017 ott tltc lilc tlt( 2nd te.:pon.l,,.n lrrreit ant' cleclare th<: ctu,ttrcl irr r/isrrrissirrrT 1,. tlte ;ctitl lD ts bot orbitranl illequi rrrtd <tnst,que:rr llt, clir e,:i thr. 1st resrtotdenl to reinst rlt lltc l)t,1itk)t)cr i:tct se.,.n,:c ,tith all t:ot'LsequenLi(r1 .st,r.r'rc,r, bcrrr,/i1s irtcltrLl^,t11 (o 1t:',,Lt1iLJ of sert'ice attendcttlI l)ctrt'|iI:; ruttI Ixrc.lt riro(/e-s. ''

¶25

I {eard Sri P.Vr:nl<att:shu,er Ru ro, le ar.ne I counsel for the petir ioner and Sri Th,rorn Srinivas, le: r:tcd Standing Counsel aptr earing on behitlf oI thc r-esponCe;rt Corp:ration.

¶26

Iearned coLrnscl for the' petirioner t;ubnlits that tl-re petitione r ^/as appoint('cl ilt tht: respon leltt 3orp,15n1i6n ." a contract c()nductor on l4.O I .2008 thror_rgh reqr.Llar selection process. W-rile the peritioncr. \,as perfor.ning his luties on 2O.O7 .2014 witl.r vehiclc No.AF,l I Z 696() on route No.186/M/X, a check rr,,as e .xt:rcisc(l .rt Slage lJc,.5 'i.lagole X road) and r he checking oflicierls issuec .r lt.arlle memo alleging that the petitioncr committed cast,r arL<l ticket irregularitl,. Thereafter, thc respondent Corporrt on issued a

---

...- a.l

charge sheet on O 1.08.20 l4 alor-rg u,ith^put off dutv^letter. The petitioner submitted hrs explanation and having^not satisfied with the same, the rcspondcnt^{Corporation ordered} regular enquiry. Basing on the enquiry^{report, the} respondent Corporation terminated the'^{service ofthe} petitioner through proceedings No. 02/95(14}/2O14-MYP{, dated 17. IO.2Ol4. Against^{the said order, the petitioner filed} appeal, 1svi6\, petition and^{mercy petitions atld the same were} rejected. Thereafter, the^{petitioner raised a dispute invoking} the provisions of Scc.2-A(2)^{of the Industrial Dispute Act,} 1947 (for short the Act')^{vide LD.No.4of 2016.}

¶31

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner further submits} that the Labour Court^{also riithoutproperly consideringthe} contentions .of the^{petitioner,documentary evidence on} record, dismissed the^{I.D. erroneouslyand passedthe} impugned award^{rvithoutgrantingany relief and also not} exercised the^{powers confirmed under Section I l-A of the} Act. The^{petitionerduring his entire servicehas not} committed any case^{of ticket irregularity.}

¶32

Per contra, learned^{Standing Counselsubmits that} the petitioner committed^{grave misconductof cash and ticket}

¶33

¶34

irrcgttlaritie s^{and respondctlt()orllorariotlrftr:r follorr ing thc} due^{proceclu -e as per thcregltlrtttclt'ls lasrtrtnoveci llte} petitioner frotn service^{after corlclucting det:rilede rqtLrrn' The} said removal^{or-d.er u,as conlirrnerl bv the ztppr:l1irt,: a:thoritr',} revisronal au horitY^{and in tltt lnt'rtl p('tiliotl'lhe Lallottr} CoLlrt also alter^{consideringthc documc:-Ltaryt Ylcle llct:oL-t} record and alter^{hearing both thc parties rightl' cli:;missed} the LD. bl^{givingcogel-rt ltrlclrrlgs throurgl-irnpniltlccarvard} d'.ttecl 27.O3.'.10J7^{and thert' is no irrcgular tv ar:d 11i('[]a1ilvirr} the impugnetI^{orderpassedb-r' t]-rc Labour(lor-trtto ir:r okc the} juriscliction cr this court unrlcr^{Ar-ticlc 226 ol C onstitr-Lti on of} India and the^{scopeof judicial rcvieu'is ven limi[eC'}

¶35

H a.ving consiclerccl^{thc rival sul)rnissi')i.rs of both} the parties ard^{after perusa'Ll of the impugn-rd a$'a'c1,ir clearly} reveals that the^{respondent Corporatior-r issuerlpl c'creectings} against the^{petitioner b-v issuinga} charl3e sl.eet^on O 1 .08.20 14. Thereafter, <:ondltctecl^{reglriar cnrlr'rirl' by} appointing E nquiry Officer.^{Thc Enqtlir,rOffi':crsubmitted} enquiry repr,rt on^{i5.09.20 14.Basing on t-rtsilme'the} disciplinan' autl'rorltv^{impost'<1 pttnishmcntrermoving the} petitioner from the^{sen'ice. The specificcont errtir'rlof the}

¶36

¶37

-t

¶38

¶39

learned counsel for the^{pctitioneris thatbasing onthe} submissions of the^passengers only, the^respondent Corporation initiated the^proceedings against the^petitioner. At the time of checking, the^{passengerswere in drunken} condition. They have not^produced the^{tickets issued by the} petitioner. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the^{passengersare not examined} during the course of enquirv before the Enquiry^Olficerand the respondent Corporation has not^{proved the charges} levelled against the petitioner. Inspite of the^same,the respondent Corporation imposed major^{punishmenti.e.,} removing the petitioner lrom the service.^{The impugned award} clearly reveals that the petitioner^filed a^{memo undersection} 1 1-A of the Industrial Disputes Act stating that^{he is not} questioning the validity of domestic enquiry.

¶40

7 . Taking into consideration the facts^and

¶41

circumstances of the case and to^{meet the endsof justice, the} impugned award passed by the^{LabourCourt ishereby} modified holding that the^{petitioner isentitled for} reinstatement into service as a conductor^{afresh without any} service benefits including backu,ages. Accordingly,^the

¶42

¶43

rcsponclent^{,lc)rporation} is dirt:cted to^{rc'itl starte t le pc titi,-,tler} into ser-vice as condut<:tor afrt sh^$ ithin a^{peri l<: o1 t\'o (02)} months fron the date of receipt of^{a copy r,l this.r rdt:t-subjcct} to medical e xamination and also l'urther^{t1'rt pctiticrLershall} be placr-'d lrr dcr observation for a^{pt'riocl ol'one} -t:al^{}om the} daLc. of ap[ orntment and cluring the sirirl^{'lcriol, iI'thc}

¶44

petitioner committed ver)' sarne mrstal<e t re^t-es1- orl lents^are entitled to r( mo\re the petiiioner froln sen^{ice $} it^{lor.tt issuitlg} anv notice. Ir is marde cl,:ar that tl'ris^ot der^{s;h all ttot lre a} prccedent to any other cas(l

¶45

B. Ac<:ordingly, tl-rt: Writ ['etitit>r' ts

¶46

disposccl of No costs.

¶47

Pcndir g rriscellaneous petitions, i1- anl , shrrli stancl close,l.

¶48

sD/- t'^{PAf, qAN} f-Et,EFRRX

¶49

//TRUE^GOPY//

¶50

sEcl lotd6FFlcER

¶51

To, 1. The Depot^{Martager,Telangana StateRoadTransJrort Cor['orati:n'lViyapur-ll} BJ; 5;6;i,^H, 1+^{oao, re t-a no"15n]l'3"n} una,., Vi h a r, N a m I,a r r,/. Hyd era bad,

¶52

2 The Prdsiding^{Jfficer,Labot} 3 Telanqana ffi b'6 6^{State"s'i F veniate:Xi33"r"lfJft#i'lJ,'r?r} 45 Two One CC CCs to to^{Sri C Thoom P for r-,oo",Hiii"ciiurt Snntvrtor tne'Siate of T:l;tng:ttta'at} Hvderabad [O^JT]

¶53

6 Two CD^CoPits

¶54

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0,t10912023

ORDER

WP.No.27l88 of 2017

,--a :---"=:-'
a t ' ' :,
.:_\ j
)'l
+i )I
;ti
lr.,
.:-.

¶61

DISPOSIN(i OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT I]OSTS.

,25CoQ'

N Narsimhulu, Hyderabad v. Depot Manager, Tsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Narsimhulu, Hyderabad v. Depot Manager, Tsrtc, 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

T.Sampath, Vs The District Employment officer, Warangal District

L.K. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

G.Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs The Project Director, D.W.M.a., Mgnregs Adilabad.

Kuppala Balakrishna, Vs The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board

Alur Veeresh Babu Vs Union of India Rep., by its Secretary

Mohammed Gousiya Begum Vs The State of Telangana