This order dismisses the company's writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated an employee dismissed for unauthorized absence. The Court found the dismissal illegal due to failure to consider valid medical evidence regarding Hepatitis C during the initial inquiry.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
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.
[3301 ]
tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEPULLAKARTHIK
WRlT PETITION NO: 3462 OF2015
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiled the.rewith,the High Court maybe pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction,particularly a writ of certiorari calling for the records fromRespondent No.1pertaining to awarddt.09.06.2014in lD.No.26 of 20'13passed byRespondent No.1and quash the same.
1.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP.NO:4606oF 2015)
Petition under section 151 CPcprayingthat in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto suspend the operation ofthe order dt.09.06.2014 passed in lD No.26of 2013by the RespondentNo.1 .
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRIJ.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the RespondentNo'1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for RespondentNo.2 : SRI B.SUDHAKARREDDY& NEERAJAREDDY The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICEPULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No. 3462 OF 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is fited seeking thefottowing retief:
"...to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, particularty writ of Certiorari calting for the records from Respondent No.1 pertaining to award dt.09.06.2014in lD.No.26 of 2013passed by Respondent No.l andquash the same in the interest ofjustice andpass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Courtmaydeem fitand proper..."
2 The brief facts of the case are that, the 2ndrespondent- employee was initially appointed in thepetitioner-Corporationas a Badti Fitter w.e.f ., 22.O3.2003. Since, respondentNo.2-employee was not regular for his duties and he hasput in only60 musters during the year 2005. As such, charge sheetNo.lK- 1A12Co6lR.O\l1000, dated 15.04.20f,6 was issued under company's standing order Nos.22.25 and 25.31. Thereafter,afterconductingof enquiry, thepetitioner-company imposedpunishment of10 days suspension i.e., from 30.10.2006 to 08.11.2006 andadvised to improve his attendance. But, respondent No.2 did notimprovehis attendance and therefore, once again charge-sheet wasissued in the yeai 2006, he vo(untarity accepted the chargesleveted against him by affixing his signature. Thepetitioner-company put respondent No.2 on observation for two months toput in atteast20 musters per month. But, respondent No.2 faited toput 20 musters.
,* tsFF
)
h
FinattY,resPondentNo.2 was removed fromserviceoo31.03.2007, for hisunauthorizedabsence'Against which'respondent No'2fited an appeaIbeforethe AppettateAuthority, and the same was rejectedvide order, dated 20"12'2007'Thereafter'he fited petition under Section2'A(21ofthe lndustriat DisPute Act' 1947 set asidethe dismissatorder of the (for short"the Act")to trereinbefore the first respondent-lndustrial respondentNo.2 Tribunat-cum-LabourCourt (for short "theLabourCourt")' videlD No.26 of201 3. The Labour Courtattowed the petition in part' vide order datedOg-06'Zr,l4,orderingto'reinstate the him in: service os "AfreshBadli Filler"ond respondent No'z therein is not entitled to anybock wages,continuity of service and any other ottendant benefits-'Aggrievedby the said order' dated 09'06'2014 passed in lD.No.26of 201 3, respondent'companyfited the present writ petition.
::3::
Tribunal ought not to have entertained the appeal as it is barred by limitation and the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissing respondent No.2 from service was not justified and disproportionate.
"11. Thepetitioner did notgive onyreply tothe charges levelled against him. Asper the charge sheet morked as Ex.ll-l, he was obsent for 31 doys in Jonuory, 2005, 22 doys in February, 2005, 18 days in llorch, 2005, 28 days in April, 2N5, 23 days in lAay, 2N5, 29 days in June, 2N5. Hewos absent for total 282 days during the yeor 2005. Asper the enquiry stotqment of the petitioner otpoge No.5, the
-rl'. 1,.tr.-"
'.:4::
petitioner was suffering fromhepotitis C and took treatment atKhommam from 20'5'20O5to 23-7'2005 ond also taken unoni treotmeilprivotely'He producedthe medical certificoteissuedby Dr.Gorkey,Khammam forthe aboveperiod. He furtherstated thotdue to ill health,he could not attend to hisduties ondrequestedthe respondent to excuse him.
t{"
lromout of the ronge')i"r*^r, avaitoble thot con be imposed, hoving regord to the nature, content ond gravity of the deJoult. Unless the disciplinory authority reoches the conclusion thot hoving regord to the noture, content ond mognitude of the fault committed by the employee concerned, it would be obsolutely unsofe to retain him in service, the maximum penolty of dismissol connot be imposed. tf a lesser penalty con be imposed without seriously jeopordizing the interest of the employees the disciplinary outhority connot impose the maximum penotty of dismissol from service. He is bound to osk the inner voice ond rotionot focutty why o lesser penolty connot be imposed.
::6::
q'
{#fi.#tr#;{irtt"r:'{4'ri{i'!
1i.Under these circwnstonces consideringthe foct thot the ';;r,;,i;;;,producedmedi:,';::',t;:"::^::,'::,tr:,"','::, 20-05-2005to 23'7-2005 beloreLtt< .'"1-'rirr^"o, tot remom thatthere is iustifioble cause for the petitioner I obsent fromduty duringthe ob'ovetwomonthsperiod'Since thepetifioner *o' gi'"n compossionateoppoinunentin 'o,,Zri'tn"'nn.o j),',.]l;:;r::::,;:,'i:,^;r;Z::i::,:;' theshort period of nearly J'"ott u"",1' ^^,irstified ond ' ;i;' r;" pe ti ti o ne r t'1,""',!irn, or .t' T",'ii,' ["": : r:::, disproportionote't further ':t''l:::,:^".-*itt Oe sufficient wagesandentire service of the petitioner will b'e g punishmentona o'a"ini fo' his reinstat'ementos "Afresh BadtiFiller" 'would meet the ends of justice '
14.lntheresult'theorderofdismissaldt'31-rD'2@7 'no,tnaosEx'tA-l'"*',ii,!ii"^i:,,'r:",:";I:'::":;:::^ directed BodliFitter" to reinsrcte the and he sholl petttrrt be subjected ,"'' -. ^lb ,^-medicol t ,-rnrro, test for the Post'The Petifioneris not entitled rc ony backwoges' continuityof service ond ony otherottendant benefits'"
I
,1,
I
a:7,i
months observation period and due to itt heatth onty, respondent No.2 could not attend his duties. But, the petitioner-company without considering the medicat certificate of respondent No.2 issued by the competent authority and also without assigning any reasons for not considering the said medical certificate, straight away terminated the services of the respondent No.2, which is itlegat and against the principtes of naturaI justice.
applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, sha[ stand closed.
No costs.
SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSlsrANrffiPrnnn
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
GJP
5
I l.
HIGH COURT
DATED:0511012023
1 H3 s T4 I€
5 q
o n0 z
O IJJ JA\ 2024
DEs PAT C
ORDER
WP.No.3462 ot 2015
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
Gx"
g rO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court award reinstating the employee without back wages.
Whether the petition by the company is time barred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.M. PARIJAR VS. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARDReferred¶40
DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 1982 U.O.C. 1031
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and others
N. Shiva Shankar
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Pulla Karthik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
