Dismissed

S.Narsimha Swamy v. Gnrl Mngr.,Nalgonda Dist Coop Central Ba

Telangana HC9 Mar 2023WP/5559/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that upheld the retrenchment of daily wage workers under Section 25-F. The Court held that it cannot take a contrary decision while the Labour Court award remains valid and left open the petitioner's option to challenge the High Level Committee's age limit criteria separately.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to take appropriate steps to challenge the High Level Committee's age limit criteria in a separate proceeding.

S.Narsimha Swamy Vs Gnrl Mngr.,Nalgonda… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

|³¹⁶⁷ )

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

. (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5559 OF 2003

¶8

Between:

¶9

S.Narsimha Swamy, S/o.Rangaiah, aged 29 years, Occ : Ex. Attender, NDCC Bank, Nalgonda.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The General Manager, Nalgonda District Coop Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda. 2. The Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., rep by its HCL Sub - Committee / Chairman, TSCAB, Hyderabad.

¶13

(R - 2 is impleaded as per Court Order, dated 09-03-2023 in l.A.No.1 of 2022)

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 particularly one in the nature of mandamus;

¶16

a. declaring the award dated 30-01-2002 published on 22-5-2002 in 1.D.No.172 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court - lll, Hyderabad vide G.O.Rt.No.680 dated^14-3-2002 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record.

¶17

b. A direction may be given to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date of illegal oral termination dated 3'l-7-1995.

¶18

|.A.NO:1 OF 2019

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for re-appointment for the post of Attender without objecting the age of 50 years forthwith in the interest of^justice.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 2366 OF 2008)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner case for the filling up of post of attendant in respondent Bank pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.M.RAMA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.'t : SRI.ROHIT POGULA

¶24

Counsel for the Implead Respondent No.2 : SRI.RAVICHETTU GURU PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

¶26

I I i I

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.5559 of 2OO3

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Challenging the Award clated 3O.0 i.2O02 passed b5, rhe Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad, in t.D. No. 172 / 1998, the presen. Writ Petition is Iiled by the petitioner-employee.

¶31

Facts leading to liling of thc present Writ Petition, in a nutshell, are as follows

¶32

The petitioner herein has joined as attender temporarily on daily wage basis in the District Co-op. Central Bank I.imited, respondent herein, in the year 1992. On 12.O5. 1995, the Central Manager of the respondent-Bank had issued proceedings to all the Branch Managers ofthe respondent-Bank to discontinue the services of ail the daily wage workers with immediate effect. The petitioner and other similarly situated persons have filed W.P.No. 1O230 of 1995 challenging the letter dated 12.05.1995. This Court has disposed of the said writ petition directing that the petitioners shall not be terminated by the respondents except in accordance with the rules and procedure operating upon their services and the policy of the respondents. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-Bank had issued retrenchment orders dated 29.O7.1995 terminating the \

¶33

r.\l{..1 W.u \o.ji59 ol lli0l

¶34

¶35

services of the petitioners w.e.1.31.07.1995. The notice was sent to the petitioner and others along with one month pay and other retrenchment benefits as required under Section 25-F of the lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the ActJ. Questioning the retrenchment orders, dated 29.O7.1995, the petitioner and others have Iiled W.P. No.22O92 of 1995 before this Court. Vide order dated 21.08.1997, the said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the respondent Bank have filed Writ Appeal being W.A. No.i212 of 1997 beforc the Division Bench of the High Court and uide^judgment dated 17.12.1997 the Division Bench has set aside the order dated 21.08.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed thc Writ Appeal, however, leaving it open to the employees to raise an Industrial Dispute or to take appropriate proceedings under A.P. Shops and Establishment Act. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner and retrenched employees have raised industrial disputes between the Labour Court, wherein a common award was passed dismissing the plea of the petitioners holding that the respondent Bank have complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief prayed for. Questioning the common award dated 3O.Ol.2OO2, to the extent of I.D. No.172 of 1998, the petitioner is before this Court. \

¶36

r\AIl..l \ I'No.i559 oiluol

¶37

¶38

A counter has been filed by the respondcnt Bank mainly contending that the services of the petitioner were engaged on daily payment basis only and they werc never appointed against the approved stafling pattern. It is lurther submitted that even though two new branches were opened, the petitioner and similarly situated persons could not be accommodated in view of the fact that the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad, had accorded permission for opening of the two branches subject to the condition that there shall not be any appoint of further staff on account of opening of the said two branches and that in order to streamline the Ilnancial administration, the Commissioner has fixed the staffing pattern uide proceedings dated 12.O5.1994. Even though, the termination orders were quashed by the iearned Single Judge, the respondent Bank preferred Writ Appeal and the same was allowed by the Division Bench. Even the Labour Court has dismissed the case of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶39

Heard Sri M. Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Perused the record. \

¶40

\ \li^l \ I' \iJ^jirL/,,i I^{L I}

¶41

¶42

The admitted facts are that the petitioner along with five othcrs, u,ere working as Attenders on daily wage basis during the period 1992 to 1995 and they were retrenched from services based on a memo issued by the respondent-Bank on 1 2.05. 1 995, bearing Rc.No.Bkg/B-2 / F.3 I I 1994 -95. Challenging the said memo, the petitioner along with others had filed W.P.No. lO23O / 1995 and this Court vide order dated 25.05.1995 has set aside the same directing the authorities to follow thc procedure if they want to terminate the petitioners. Thcreupon the bank removed the petitioners and others from scrvice by following due procedure as per Section 25F of lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide proceedings Rc.No.Bkg/B12 I F.31 / 1995-96 dated 29.07. 1995 with effect from 3 1.07. 1995 Thereafter, the petitioner herein and others have again approached this Court vide W.P.No.22092l 1995 questioning the retrenchment order dated 29.O7.1995. lhough this Court vide order dated 21.08.1997 had allowed the said Writ Petition but bank has preferred a Writ Appeal No.l2l2ll997 against the order of the learned Single Judge and the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.22O92/1995 dated 21.O8.1997 a,nd the petitioner herein and others were directed to approach the Labour Court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein along with other

¶43

\ \li^I \ ir (,^{iii9,jt -} ri

¶44

¶45

retrenched employees had approached the Labour Court vtde I.D.Nos. 171,/98, 172198, 173198, 174198, 175/98, 176l98, 177 /9a, 178/98 and 179 198. The prescnt writ petition is against the common order dated 3O.Ol.2OO2 passed in I. D. No. 172/98. As against the common order dated 3O.Ol .2OO2 passed in I.D.Nos. 178198, 175198, 177 /98 and i71l98, the Writ Petition Nos. 19616/2003, 5561/2003, 5562/2OO3 and 5569 /2OO3 came to be filed and this Court vide common order datcd O5.01.2O12 has dismissed the said Writ Petitions holding as under:

¶46

"ln this case, since th.e petittoners and the respondent Gre the emploger and emplogees and the emplogees though Luere present phystcallg refused. to take nottces, the notices uere put up in the Notice Board of the respondent bank. Since the petitioners utere utorking till 31.07.1995, the displag of the notices in ttle Notice Board of the bank is sulftcient seruice of notice on tle petitioners. ,., .,.

¶47

Another question to be^qnsu.)ered is uhether in tle absence of clear uacanctes, can the respondent bahk be dtrected to engage the petitioners? It has been held in a number of cases that the emploger cannot be compeLled to continue to emploAees without there beiw a cLear uacancg or th.ere being expedtencg for work. Therefore, tlEre is no meit tn these Wit Petitions."

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that subsequently, when the bank wanted to make fresh recruitments in the year 2O08, the petitioner herein along with others had filed W.P.No.4995 /2OOB seeking a direction to the

¶49

¶50

A.\R.J W.l' No.5559 of 2(){)-'i

¶51

¶52

bank authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and others under Section 25-H of the lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the event the bank recruits any employees against the existing vacancies. This Court vide order dated 1O.03.2OO8 has allowed the said writ petition, holding as under:

¶53

^Hence tLLe Wit Petitton is disposed of, diredtng thnt as and when tle respondent proposes to fiU the uacancies, that were earlier ocntpied bg the petitioners, the cases of the petttioners shall also be considered in ter,las of Section 25-H of the Act. There sttall be rto order as lo costs. "

¶54

Thereafter, in the month of January, 2019, the bank has taken up steps to hll up the vacancies and conducted a written test for the recrultment to the post of Attenders but the petitioner was not given hall ticket on the ground that he has crossed 5O years of age. Seeking a direction from this Court, the petitioner has filed I.A.No. I of 2Ol9 in W.P.No.5559 of 2O03, with the following prayer:

¶55

" . .^{. pleased} to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for re-appointment for the post oJ Attender uithout objecting the age of 5O gears forThwith in the interest of justice aftd to pass such other order or orders appropiate in th.e case.'

¶56

Counter has been filed by the authoritSr concerned stating that basing on the recommendations of High [rvel Committee, the eligible internal caldidates were recommended as under:

¶57

¶58

A,\R.J W.l' No.5559 of 2i10,'l

¶59

¶60

'1. The candtdates who passed or failed Vh CLo.ss and are utorktng as Attenders or su.)eepers on contract or consolidated or daitg wage bcsis in TSCAB or DCCBS as on 3O.O9.2O17 and continuing till O7.O7.2O18 shall be called as "Eliglble Internal Cdndidates" for the purpose of selection.

¶61

The age shatl be between 27 to 50 gears for all etigible tlenl\l cat Ldidates. "

¶62

¶63

Thereafter, vacancies were lilled up. As the petitioner was not eligible under the said criteria, he was not given hall ticket. Even though the petitioner has filed I.A.No. 1 of 2019, no interim orders wcrc passcd by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the recommendations of the High Level Committee are contrary to the terms of Section 25-H and 25-J of the Industriai Disputes Act, that the petitioner cannot be termed as a new employee but should be treated as existing employee and therefore, ought to have been allowed to take the exam for recruitment. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not taken any steps'to either amend the main prayer in the writ petition or press for passing of orders in I.A.No. 1 of 2019 at that relevant point of time. Now after a lapse of more than four years, no order can be passed in LA.No. 1 of 2019, more-so, when the entire recruitment process is over.

¶64

Having regard to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 19616 /2OO3 and batch in respect of the very same

¶65

¶66

.\ R..l \ P \i,^iiit) 1)ll0O.1

¶67

common orcler dated 30.01.2002 passed by the Labour Court, which is impugned in the present writ petition, this Court cannot take a contra vie$, and the present Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed.

¶68

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for challenging the rccommendations made by the High Level Committee in fixing the upper age limit to 5O years, if he is so advised.

¶69

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Thcrc shall be no order as to costs

¶70

SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶71

¶72

SE OFFICER

¶73

One CC to SRLM.RAMA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRI.RAVICHE_ITU GURU PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI.ROHIT POGULA, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies S.A GJP .k

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910312023

ORDER

WP.No.5559 of 2003

1El
o
s
,t,_,
s\ r-r
<br>,
it
') i-r

¶80