Dismissed

Ch. Chandraiah, v. the Honble Industrial Trib-Cum-Labour Court and 1

Telangana HC27 Mar 2023WP/5236/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a former conductor, sought writ relief challenging an Industrial Tribunal award dismissing his termination and praying for reinstatement with back wages. He also sought terminal benefits. The court, noting his attested age of superannuation, dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to submit a representation for payment of terminal benefits if any were due. Order dated 27-03-20

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Liberty granted to submit representation within 2 weeks for consideration and payment of terminal benefits (if due) by authority within 8 weeks.

Ch. Chandraiah, Vs the Honble Industrial… — 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 TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5236 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch.Chandraiah, S/o. Basvaiah, Occ : Ex-Conductor, E.No. 326948, R:/o.H.No.3-7_ 23812, Pumping Well Road, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Hon'ble lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, Rep. by its Presiding Officer.

¶12

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sathupally Bus Depot, Khammam District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High - ciurt may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature oiwrit of certiorari and after calling for the records in LD.No. 11112002, dt. 0g-6-2oos on the file of the Hon'ble^'l st respondent in so far not granting any relief to the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently set isioe tt-re award in l-D.No. 11 '112002, dt. 08-6-2005 by granting reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages to the petitioner.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.G.RAVI MOHAN

¶16

Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRT.GADDAM SR|N|VAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶20

WRIT PE'I'ITION No.5236 of 2006

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Questioning^{the Arvard dated 08.06.2005passed by the} respondent No.1 - Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Warangal, dismissing I.D.No.1 11 of 2002 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶23

Learned counsel lbr the petitioner has stated that even though the petitioner was worked as Conductor in the respondent Corporation frorn the year 1992 till 2002, the petitioner has not been given the terminal benefits. The learned counsel has stated that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.01 .2002 and the petitioner has filed I.D.No.1ll o{. 2002 before the respondent No.l for setting aside the removal order dated 25.01 .2002 and to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits, but, the respondent No.l Tribunal vide impugned Award dated 0g.06.2005 dismi_ssed the said

¶24

AAR, J w P.No 5236 ot 2006

¶25

¶26

I.D.No.lll of 2002 confirming the removal order dated 25.01.2002. The learned counsel has stated that as the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the respondent Corporation may be directed to pay terminal benefits to the petitioner.

¶27

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 Corporation has stated that the petitioner may be directed to give a representation to the authority concerned with regard to the payment of terminal benefits, if any due to the petitioner, if not already paid.

¶28

Having regard to the above made submissions, this Writ Petition is dismissed, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the authority concerned of the respondent Corporation for payment of terminal benefits that may be due to the petitioner, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made, the authority concerned shall consider the said representation of the petitioner and pay the

¶29

¶30

44tt,.l \.P No-5236 oi 2000

¶31

¶32

terminal benellts to the petitioner, if not already paid, within a

¶33

period of eight (8) weeks thercafter.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶35

closed. There shall be no orcler as to costs.

¶36

SO/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶37

SE ON OFFICER

¶38

¶39

1 Two CCs to Gp FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶40

z 9nu 99^{to SRI.G.RAV| MOHAN, Advocate} tOpUCl 3 4. one cc to SRT.GADDAM sRtNtVAa (sc'F6i r"s"drcl topucl Two CD Copies S.A GJPcll?

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710312023

ORDER

t :.1, i<br>a-r; .'L
1\11
Ir )1<br>

WP.No.5236 of 2006

DISMISSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

@u\oq\r>

Ch. Chandraiah, v. the Honble Industrial Trib-Cum-Labour Court and 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Chandraiah, v. the Honble Industrial Trib-Cum-Labour Court and 1

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 Yunus, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Pasuvula Satyanarayana, Nizamabad Dist. Vs the Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nizamabad and 2 Others

Solam Narendar Vs Shri K.Nagaraju

Mohd. Afzal Khan, S/o. Mahboob Khan, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep., by its

Deshini Satyanarayana Vs Dulam Deepak

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Vs G. Dayakar Reddy and Another