Dismissed

The Divisional Engineer-Electrical Npdcl, Khammam v. the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024WP/11810/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a power distribution department challenging an Industrial Tribunal award. The Tribunal reinstated a workman who alleged misconduct regarding unauthorized meter fixing and money acceptance. The Court found the reinstatement justified due to departmental lapses and reviewed the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded. All miscellaneous pending petitions were closed.

The Divisional Engineer-Electrical Npdcl, Khammam… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWEN]Y FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:11810 OF 2008

¶7

Betvveen:

¶8

The Divisional Engineer-Electrical^{(Operations) NorthernPower Distribution} company of AP Ltd., Sattupalli, Khammam District

¶9

...'ET'T'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

't. The lndustrial Tribunal Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer 2. Sri B.Somaiah, S/o. Veerabhadraiah Ex.Junior^{Lineman, Cheru nazar Enukur} village and Mandal, Khammam District

¶12

...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{India praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order direction or writ^particularly one in the^{natureof writ of} certiorari and after calling for the records^{quash the award passed in lD.No.125 of} 2005 dated 14.2.2008 by the lndustrial Tribunal^{cum Labour Court,Warangal.}

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 15234^{OF 2008} I

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} suspend the award^passed in lD.No.125^{of 2005 daled 14.2.2008 by the lndustrial} Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal.

¶16

l.A. NO: I OF 20'|(WVM P. NO: 2078 OF^201/t)

¶17

Between:

¶18

Sri B.Somaiah, S/o. Veerabhadraiah^{Ex.Junior Lineman, Cheru nazar Enukur} village and Mandal, Khammam Diskict

¶19

...'ET'T'ONER/ 2.d RESPONDENT

¶20

AND

¶21

The Divisiona Engineer-Electrical^{(operatigns) Northern Power Distribution} company of At'] LtdI, Sattupalli,^{Khammam District}

¶22

...RESPONDENTM/RIT^PETITIONER

¶23

The lndustrial Tribunal Labour^{Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer}

¶24

...RESPONDENT

¶25

Petition under section^{'151CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in :;upport of the petition,the High court maybe pleased vacate} the interim orders^{granted on 12-06-2008in w.P.M.P. No. 15234 of 2008 in w.P.} No. 11810 of 2008^{irr the interest of justice and fair play}

¶26

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI^{ZAKIRALI DANISH} Counsel for the Resrpondent^{No.l:GP FOR LABOUR} Counsel for the Res,pondent^{No.2:SRIV.NARASIMHAGOUD}

¶27

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE^{NAGESH BHEEMAP AI(A}

¶30

WRIT PETITIO N No.118loof2OO8

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is frled by the^{Divisional Engineer (Electrical),} APNPDCL, Khammam,^(for short, 'the^{Department') challengingthe Award} d.ated. 14.02.2o08 passed by^{the Industria-lTribunal-cum-Labourcourt in} ID No.125 of 2005. By the^{impugned Award,the Labourcourt directedthe} petitioner-Department to reinstate the^{2"d respondent-workman as a} Junior Lineman afresh without^{continuityof service or backwagesor} attendant benehts.

¶33

The case in a nutshell is that^{the 2"d respondentworkmanwas} appointed in the serrrice of^{petitioner-Departmenton 01'O8'2OO2as Junior} Lineman on contract basis. Complaints^{were receivedagainst him that he} is not staying in the headquarters,^{thereby causing inconvenience to the} consurners, that he has collected^{Rs.13O0/- from one N'Lalaiah S/o} Ramulu toward s new service^{connectionand the 2.d respondent fixeda} removed meter for which no bills^{were receivedby Lalaiah for six rnonths.} The Divisional Engineer forwarded^{the complaints and preliminaryenqrliry} was conducted, and a report^{was submitted to the DivisionalEngineer{O)} Sattupally, vide proceedings^{dated 2a.O9.2OO4.Basedon the compla-ints,} the respondent was^placed under^{suspensionby proceedings dated} O4.LO.'&O4, )ir and thereafter a charge^{sheet was issued on 20'L0'2004}

¶34

¶35

¶36

alleging four charges. The purport of the charges is that under Charge No.1, the 2nd resJrondent workman is alleged to have accepted an amount of Rs. 130O/- fron Sri Lalaiah for providing new service connection under Category-I; Chartre No.2 relates to hxing a removed meter for Lalaiah for which no biils were received for six months; Charge No.3 relates to the 2nd respondent not staying in the Headquarters thereby causing inconvenience; arrd Charge No.4 relates to non-arranging tom-tom in the village on 27 .O9.'.l,OO4 inspite of specihc instructions; thereby disobeying the orders of supe rior officers.

¶37

An enquiry was conducted into the charges in the charge sheet. Charges I and 2 u,ere held to be proved and Charges 3 and 4 are not proved. The Div:sional Engineer issued a Show Cause notice dated O2.O2.2OOS for rrhich the workman submitted his explanation dated 15.02.2005. Thert:after, the Divisionai Engineer (O), by proceedings dated O2.O3.2OO5, impor;ed the punishment of removal from service.

¶38

The workmzrn approached the Labour Court by hling ID No.125 of 20O5. The Labour Court, after due enquiry, passed the impugned Award dated 14.O2.2O08.

¶39

Heard Sri lZakir Ali Danish, learned counsel for the petitioner_ Department, and liri V. Narsimha Goud, for the 2nd respondent.^workman.

¶40

( (

¶41

¶42

karned counsel for t]le^{petitioner primarilycontendedthat the} Labour Court having recorded a Frnding, that^{charges Iand' 2 with regard} to mis-utilization of departmental meters, ald^{causing loss of revenue to} the Department have been proved, erred^{in directingreinstatement' It is} further contended that the Labour court^{recorded a frnding that the} workman himself admitted that he received^{an amount of Rs'1300/-from} one N. Lalaiah and fixed the meter^{withoutpermission ofhigher} authorities, and even during enquiry it^{was establishedthat the narne of} Lafaiah was registered in A-form for^{meter on O5'1O'2004 and the meter} was fxed prior to registration. The^{Labour Court alsorecorded that} respondent workman has engaged^{privatepersons to discharge his duties} and the said private persons has^{fixed the meter' The LabourCourt} categorica'lly recorded a frnding that^{the respondent workman demanded} and received Rs.13OO/- from one Lataiah^{for releasing new servicebut} heas not obtained A form and necessar5r^{demanddrafts and thereafter} Lalaih has paid the said amount on 05.10.2OO4^{for obtaining the meter'It} is ttrerefore contended that there is serious^{charge of misapprolxiation and} misutilization departmental meters and^{therefore the impugnedAward} directing reinstatement is illegal and the^{same is liable to be set aside'}

¶43

On the other hand,^{learned counselfor the 2"d respondent workman} would contend that the Labour Court^{has considered the evidence} available on record in proper^{perspectiveand directedreinstatementby the}

¶44

¶45

impugned Award and therefore the same does not warrart interference by this Court

¶46

It is pertin,:nt to note that the Labour Court, upon considering the oral and docume rtarjr evidence available on record, observed that the 2"d respondent workrnan has not disputed the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by tht: petitioner Department, and that sufhcient opportunity was given to the workmal at every point of time and enquiry was conducted accorrling to the principles of natura-l justice. The enquiry proceedings were marked as Ex.Ml and both the parties lead additionar evidence before the Labour court. The workman was examined as ww-1 and Exs.W1 to Wii were marked. The petitioner got examined as MW_1 ald Ex.Ml was marked through him.

¶47

With regard to the charge that the workman demanded and accepted Rs. I3OO/- from o,e t,,laiah, resident of Jannaram village, tou,ards release of new ser'ice cc'nnection, it is observed by the Labour court that the villagers complained that the workman was not residing in the village, ad that one Lalaih of Jannaram village complained that he paid Rs. 13O0/_ to the Junior Lineman of the village about g months back, and from six months he is no receiving the current bills though he requested the Junior Lineman Icr a-llotment of service number for the meter and for issuance of bili, he did not respond positively arrd therelbre Lalaiah ( t

¶48

¶49

requested the Divisional Engineer to do^{justice to him' and basing on that} complaint, the spot statement of the^{petitioner was recorded wherein the} workman stated that he fixed the meter^{in the houseof Lalaiahwithout} a\thorization of the officers and Lalaiah^{paid Rs' 13oO/- and requested the} authority to excuse him for the^{said mistake'Basedon that the Divisional} Engineer, Khammam, addressed^{letterto Divisional Engineer Sathupally} stating that the workman was^{not residing at Headquarters'Jarrnaram'} but at Enkuru and he has frxed^{the struck-upmeter givento him for} replacement to Lalaih on collecting^{Rs' 1300/- from him and he has not} arranged tom-tom in the^{village ot 27} 'O9 '2OO4^{and disciplinary action has} to be initiated against him, and accordingly^{he was charge sheeted'}

¶50

a. The Labour^{Courtfurther observed that the AssistantDivisional} Engineer, Tallada, recorded^{the statement of Lalaih'The workmal did not} ar-range for tom-tom on^{27.O9-2OO4,and the workman was not residing in} ttre village. The workman in his^{evidence deposedthat he gavethe} statement on 27.O9.2OO4 under^{fear at that time of giving statement'and} ttrat Lalaiah registered in A-form^{on O5'1O'2OO4 but he was havingmeter} Frior to^{that and that the workman has not mis-uLilizedthe departmental} rrreters and did not cause^{loss of revenue,and that he does not know} a-bout the issuance^{of S.No'34397l/Havells-make meter' The workman} frrrther deposed that he was^{residing inthe house of G'Rama Rao'} .-Jannaram from 7 months, arld^{priorto that he was residingin Enkuru'}

)

t I

The Labour Court further observed that Lataih gave statement on 27.O9.2OO4 star-i.1g that his meter was fixed by a private person sent by the workman and that the workmal came with two persons arrct that Lalaiah gave Rs. 13OO/ - tr one of the persons who counted the same and gave it to the workman, ard the meter was hxed two months after that by a private person sent by the workman

¶55

The Labour court further observed that prahlada Rao u,ho signed on the statement gi.ren on 2T .O9.2OO4 admitted that they tr/ere not having power in their village regularty a',d services were disconnected and out of anger they comp ained against the workman but in reality 1.he workman was residing in the house of G. Rama Rao, and they have not anticipated the suspension ol the workman in view of their false complaint and hence they are deposing correctly, arrd tom-tom was performed in their village on 27.O9.2OO4. It wls further observed by the Labour Court that during cross-examinatior: of workman, he stated that he was working as lineman in Jannaram ald Lalaih was residing in the same village in rented house, and some private people were attending the work in his house, and that the workman executed the document d,ated 22.O9.2OO4 due to the threat of Dy'Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer a,d rater he gave oral complaint regadin q the same to the Assistant Enginecr, but not written complaint And thrrt he does not know the working condition of the meter fixed ip the house of Lalaiah is not known to him, and that Lalaiah was {.

¶56

¶57

not in the D-list and he came to know that^{Lalaiah tookilleeal connection} from some private person and that he instructed^{the concerned personto} perform tom-tom on 27.O9.2OO4 but it was^{performed on next day, arrd} that he has to look after 14 villages^{including Jannaram.}

¶58

The Labour Court further observed^{that the DivisionalEngineer} (Transformers) Khammam was exarnined^{as MW-1, and duringhis cross} examination, he stated that^{he worked from 31.O3.2OO4to 31'05'2007 atd} that the workman was working under^{the control of DivisionalEngineer,} Sathupally and a complaint^{was given by villagers againsthim andhe} halded over the sarne to the^{Department,and one Pra-hladaRaoand} N. taxmaiah gave complaints, regarding^{non-issuartce of DDs ald another} regarding providing new meter unauthorisedly.^{Herecorded spot} explanation, took the signatures of^{Iine inspector and stated that during} the enquiry first two charges^{were proved againsthim; and they havenot} examined the private person to^{whom Lalaiahgave the amount,and that} their department is maintaining^{the meters issuance registerbut it was} not verilied by the enquiry o{ficer, and^{meterswere supplied to the} workmal to replace the struck up^{meters and he fixed the said meters in} the house of Lalaih and ttrey have^{not registeredany case against Lalaiah} for taking illegal connection as their department^{peoplefixed the meter in} his house

¶59

¶60

The Labour Court further observed that the enquiry ofllcer recorded his hndings and held that charges 3 and 4 were not proverl against the workmal; and b ased on the enquiry hndings a Show Cause notice of removal from sr:rvice was issued, and the workman submitted his explanation and then he was removed.

¶61

The [,abou| Court, after appreciating the evidence arld material on record, observed ,vith regard to the charges on the workmal at paragraph 14 as follows:

¶62

"lt clearly shows that he has authorized a private person to discharge his duties and le has not verified the same. Cumulative effect of lhe entire evidence belore the court clearly goes to show that petitioner demanded and accepterl an amount of Rs.l300/- from N. Lalaiah for release of new service but t e has not obtained^,,A,, and necessary DDs and later Lalaiah himself phid the amount on 5.10.2004 for obtaining meter and it clearly shows that lhe said amount ofRs.l3OO/- given to the petitioner was not deposited by him by way of DDs before the concerned authorities"

¶63

Further, wirh regard to enquiry of Assistant Engineer. the Labour Court observed at paragraph 16 as follows:

¶64

"Assistant Engineer during the enquiry clearly stated that he will verify the meter issuarce register to know whether the meter No.343971/Havels make was allotted to the petitioner or not but at no point of time he has submitted th,) required important particulars to the court to prove their allegation beyond reasonable doubt. lt is for them to establish the fact prior to the irlposition of the stringent penalty of removal. Moreover MW.l )^{duringthe cr,)ss examination answered that they have not initiated action} )^{against Lalai:rhfor taking illegal connectionbecause as per the complaint} "departmental people fixed the meter and the complaint was given by the

¶65

¶66

consumeC'. lt^{clearlyshows that the private personfixed the meter is also} authorized by the^{departmentto do so. Petitioneris entrusted the wortof} 14 villages though in^{usual course he has to attend4 villages and hence} the excess load^{of work entrustedto him necessarily leads him to engage} private peEons and as Per^{the evidenceit seems that thisfact was known} to the dePartment^{and they have also authorized the said persons'} Considering the^{laPsesof the respondentscourt feels that the Punishment} of removal imPosed^uPon him is disproportionate^{to the alleged} misconduct....."

¶67

Having considered^{the respective submissions'and perusingthe} material on record.,^{this court does not frnd any reason to interfere with} the impugned^{Awardpassedby the Labour Court' and the writ petitionis} liable to be dismissed.

¶68

Accordingly,^{the writ petition is dismissed'No costs' Miscellaleous} petitions if any^{pending,shall stand closed'}

¶69

SD'-N.^SRIH RI ASSISTANT^REGIS R

¶70

/TTRUE^COPY//

¶71

SECTION^OFFICER

¶72

To 1 2 " " ". 3 iI?^{":Eifl3Biffidllilffi* [^H:Hsiri s# T:::"} 4 B*"St?S^{th?VRo*., n"o GoUD' Advocate [oP u c]} 5 Two CD^CoPies

PSK. GJY Y?;

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912024

ORDER

WP.No.11810 of 2008

1HE SI
(,
3 ) li ; 0E[ 2024
,L a2
* o
€,S nrir r- y E o
-:-_:-

¶79

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶80

eb
$ w
t\ dJ

The Divisional Engineer-Electrical Npdcl, Khammam v. the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Engineer-Electrical Npdcl, Khammam v. the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Warangal and Another

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

The South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Vs The Second Appellate Authority

The Scr Emp.Co-Op.Credit Society Ltd.,Secunderabad. Vs the II Appellate Authority,Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

The South Central Railway Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Credit Society Kalher Vs State of Telangana

Golf Pride Homes Welfare Society Residents Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ncl Industries Limited Vs The State of Telangana