Allowed

The Divisional Engineering, Mahaboobnagar v. the Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023WP/9640/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash a Labour Court award that reinstated an employee despite a history of unauthorized absence. The Court held that the award was flawed due to lack of evidence for absences spanning several years.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the Writ petition is allowed.

The Divisional Engineering, Mahaboobnagar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

I I { I

[^{3167 j}

I I i I , i I l I I

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

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHTSHEK REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITI ON NO:9640 OF 2006

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Mahaboobnagar Distiict.Divisional Enoineer tn Electrical, Operation, ApCpDCL, Wanapathy,

¶11

AND

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

The Presiding Officer, Labo 2. Mahaboobnagar.9.. .Balaraju,- Ex-Lineman, '{,S:Tdli''3j8#'i,lil},T;,,bo,i?ffi ,Manda,,

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order. or direction and set aside the award made in r.D.No. 11gt2oo3 0n the fire of the Labour court-r' crated 14-11-2005 passed by the 1st respondent in the interests of^justice and equity.

¶16

I.A. N 10 200 WPMP. O:1 7oF 06

¶17

Petition under Sectio n 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay of order in r.D.No. 11gt2oo3 on the fire of on the fire of the Labour court-*, dated 14-11-2005 passed by tfie 1st respondent in the interests of justice and equity.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt R. VINOD REDD', S.C. FOR TSTRANSCO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR LABOUR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. PRABHAKAR RAO

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI.IIIS'IICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETI'IION No.9640 of 2006

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Challeni:,ing thc au'ard dated l4.l 1.2005 passcd by the learned Presi<ling Officer, l-abour Court-III, Hyderabad, ln I.D.No.ll9 o1'2003, the petitioner employer has filed the present Writ Pctition.

¶26

Learned counscl for the petitioner employer^{has stated} that pursuant to the award dated 14.11.2005^{passed by the} learned Presiding OIlicer, [.abour Court-III, Hyderabad,^the respondent No.2 employee has never^{joined the serviceand} that prior to the impugned award also,^{the respondent No.2} employee was absconding from duty. Even till date, the respondent No 2 has not bothered^{to join duty.}

¶27

Even when the matter is^{taken up, thr:re is no} representation,rn behalf ol the respondent^No.2

¶28

A perusrrl of the irupugned award dated^14.11.2005 shorvs that thc Labour Clotirt had framed two^{points for} consideration. u'hich read as trnder

¶29

A{R,] lV P.No 96+0 oI20Or)

¶30

¶31

"1. Whether thc charge framed against^{thcpetitioneris provcd} according to law and material on record?

¶32

Whether the^punishment of removal^isshockingly disproponionate and if so.^{to what relicf, the petitioner is entitled} to?"

¶33

Insofar as the point No.^I IS concemed, the charge framed against the respondent No.2^{was proved,} but,^{insofar as} the point No.2 is concerned, with regard to the unauthorized absence, the Labour Court though observed that^the respondent No.2 has not filed any medical certificate to show that he was suffering from leg injury or^jaundice and come to the conclusion that unauthorized absence of the respondent No.2 is without sufficient reason. However, the Labour Courl has taken a lenient view and set aside the order of removal dated 01.09.1998 and directed the reinstatement of the respondent No.2 as fresh Lineman without granting any other benefits.

¶34

Admittedly, in this particular case, the fact that the

¶35

.^{respondent No.2 has absented from duty on differentspells} i.e., from 18.02.1991 to 10.05.1995 and from 01.08.1995 till the date of the charge sheet, has not been disputed by the

¶36

A-AR, J \Y P No 96.10 o12006

¶37

¶38

respondent Nrt.2, thcrelbrc, the [,abour Court otrght not to havc set aside the order ol-removal dated 01.09.199g in the absence of anv cl,idcnce pnrdr"rced by the respondent No.2 to show that the said absence lvas genuine or bonafide one.

¶39

7 Having regard to thc above, the impugned au/ard dated

¶40

14.11.2005 passed by the l-abour Courr-lll, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.l l9 o1'2003 is herebl ser aside and the Writ petition is allowed.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶42

closed. There shall be no ordcr as to costs

¶43

That Rule'' Ni"i h".^{beenabsoluteas above.Witness the Hon'ble the Chief} iiiiii"i-Shi UjJAL^{BHUYAN,on this Tuesday, The TwentyFifthDav of April'} Two Thousand^{and TwentY Three}

¶44

SD/- K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Presiding^{Officer' Labour Court - lll, Chandravihar, Hyderabad'}

¶48

One CC to^{SRI R. VINOD REDDY, S C for TSTRANSCO[OPUC]}

¶49

Two CCs to^{GP for Labour,High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶50

One CC to^{SRI M PRABHAKARRAO,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶51

Two CD^CoPies

MP LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510412023

.<br>. ..<br>'....<br>(
l7
11 li\lI 1{l]
"ORDER

¶56

WP.No.9640 of 2006

¶57

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

a
o2loe f >z
.i.Ll
-S..-,
-

The Divisional Engineering, Mahaboobnagar v. the Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Engineering, Mahaboobnagar v. the Presiding Officer, 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

Ms. K.V.N.V. Bharathi Devi Vs Sri M. Jagadeeswar, lAS

Challa Ramadevi Vs Rama Rama Rao and another

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners Vs Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad Vs the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and 1

Doddipati Saraiah Vs Vuppu Mallikarjun

Sale Ravi, Khammam District Vs the Commissioner , Dpet., F Ayush, and 3 Others