Dismissed

V.Danaiah, S/o. Raja Mallu, v. The Honble Labour Court-Iii

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023WP/2966/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a Labour Court award. The Labour Court had reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service but denied back wages and attendant benefits. The High Court found no illegality in the award. (One OCR error found in year of termination: 1996 vs 1997).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Labour Court award upheld.

V.Danaiah, S/o. Raja Mallu, Vs The Honble… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2966 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Danaiah, Sio. Raja Mallu, Occ Conductor, E.N 0.67921, Aged about 57 years R/o. Malipuram (V), Thirumalgiri (M), Nalgond aD istrict. ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Hon'ble Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer.

¶11

The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Yadagirigutta Bus Depot, Nalgonda Dist.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue Writ order or direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in l.D.No.11 1l2OO1 dt 29-3-2004 on the file of the Hon'ble I st respondent in so far as denying attendant benefits, notional increments, back wages and further imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one (1) year with cumulative effect to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust consequently quash the award in l.D.No. 11112OO1 , dt. 29-03-2004 by granting attendant benefits, back wages, notional increments to the petitioner

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. RAVI MOHAN SENIOR COUNSEL

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI KRISHNA KARTHIK REP

¶17

sRl GADDAM SRTN|VAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.2966 of 2O13

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 29.O3.2OO4 passed by the first respondent-Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad (For short "the Labour Court') in I.D.No.1 1 1 of 200 l insofar as denying the attendant benefits, notional increments, back wages and further rmposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect to the petitioner.

¶23

The case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Conductor on 2l .05. 1977. Whi\e he was performing his duties on 15.05.7997 on bus bearing No.AEZ 2608, the checking officials conducted check and issued a charge sheet, dated 26.05.1997, with three charges, for which he has submitted his explanation denying the same. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent appointed an enquiry officer. Basing on the enquiry report, the services of the petitioner were terminated by proceedings of the second respondent dated 1l .12.1gg7 . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal

¶24

¶25

¶26

before the appellate authority and the salrte was reJected on 09.11.1996. As such, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and filed ID.No.1 11 of 2001 and the Labour Court passed award dated 29.O3.2004 granting relief of reinstatement vrirh continuity of service, but, however denied the increments, attendant benelits, back wages and imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Karthik. learned counsel representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learnecl Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. perused the record.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for tht: petitioner contends that there was no malafide intention cn the part of the petitioner in conducting the bus nor he defrauded the revenue of the respondent-Corporation. It is further contended that alleged passengers were imposed with fine and obtainecl top punched tickets. It is further contended that the gravity of the misconduct was disproportionate to the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶29

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends that the charges were held proved in the enquiry. Hence, the punishment of removal was imposed against the petitioner. The said punishment was already modified by the Labour Court to that of reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with deferment of one annua-l grade increment with cumulative effect, but, without back wages and attendant benefits. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶31

This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective Counsel.

¶32

7 . A perusal of the impugned award discloses that the Labour Court at para No.7 observed with regard to punishment imposed against the petitioner, which reads as under:

¶33

"The petitioner is having 2 1 years of service up to the date of his removal. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a very poor person and he is also having severe family problems so today his age is time bared and he could not get employment at this age. Having regard to these circumstances, I feel that the orders of removal from service passed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to and at the same time, I feel that the end of justice will meet if the petitioner is reinstated into service with continuity of service, with deferment of ONE (1) Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect, but without back wages and attendant benehts. ... ..."

¶34

¶35

,.,

¶36

B. A perusal^{of the record disclosesthat the petitionerhad} completed^{(21) years of service by the date of his removaland} he hails from^{poor family. Apart from that' the petitioner was} aged about 50^{years by that time and as such' he couldnot} secure any alternative^{employment'Though'the chargeshave} been held^{proved against the petitioner'by taking into} consideration^{of all the aspects,the Labour Court has already} modified the^{punishment of removal from serviceand directed} to reinstate the^{petitioner into servicewith continuityof service} with deferment^{of one annualgrade incrementwith cumulative} effect, but^{without back wages and attendant benefits'} Therefore, I^{do not find any irregularityor illegality in the order} of the Labour^{Court warranting interferenceby this Court'}

¶37

Petition 1S dismissed. g. AccordinglY, the writ Miscellaneous^{petitions, pending, if any, in this writ petition}

¶38

shall stand closed.^{No costs}

¶39

SD/. V. HARI^P AD ASSISTANT REGI^TRAR

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

SECTION FFICER

¶42

To, 1 The Presidinq Officer,^{Hon'ble Labour Court-lll,Hyderabad,} 2 fwo CCi to^{"GP FORLABOUR} ,High^{Court for the State of Telangana,at} erabad [OUT] ne CC to SRl.^{GRAVI MOHAN, Advocate} [OPUC] 4. One CC to^{SRl. GA} DDAM SRINIVAS,^{(SC FOR TSRTc)} toPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies BM GJP pt'^q

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411012023

ORDER

f { STAT C
q t1 $tt 88
oo
i
trEspN

¶47

WP.No.2966 of 2013

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

$C\ e\ril -3'

V.Danaiah, S/o. Raja Mallu, v. The Honble Labour Court-Iii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Danaiah, S/o. Raja Mallu, v. The Honble Labour Court-Iii

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

Raju Dharam Sothu,M.Sc, B.Ed, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V. Maruthi S/o. Hanumaiah, aged about 48 years, Vs The Government of A.P. rep by it Pricipal Secratary

The A.P Diary Deveolpment Cooperation Federation Empl. Assn Vs M.D, Apddcf Ltd., Hyd.

A.B. Maheshwar, Vs The Apsrtc

Pittala Ramesh, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its Chairman

T. Selvaraj, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation