Partly allowed

N. Prameela Bai, v. The Presiding Officer

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024WP/37979/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of certiorari to call for records of a Labour Court award. While upholding the dismissal, the Court held the punishment disproportionate and granted reinstatement with continuity of service, relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding disproportionate penalties.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement with continuity of service granted; rest of the Labour Court award upheld.

N. Prameela Bai, Vs The Presiding Officer — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:37979 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

N. Prameela Bai, D/o. Pool Singh Naik, Aged about 34^years, Contract Conductor (C.911745), APSRTC, Vikarabad Bus Depot, Ranga Reddy District, A.P.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court-|, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad, A.P.

¶12

2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vikarabad Bus Depot, Ranga Reddy District A.P.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the award in l.D. No.73 of 2012 dt. 1 3-06-201 3 on the file the Respondent No. t herein and declare it for not awarding continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages also is bad, arbitrary, illegal.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MS. K.V.^{PHANISREE,APPEARINGON} BEHALF OF SRI M. RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC FRO TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

Ytp-37979 2013 NBK,I

¶19

THE H ON'BLE SRI^{USTICE NAGESHBHEEM}

¶20

P,,IKA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner was appointed^{as Conductor on contractualbasis} in the year 2006 She was terminated^{from service videproceedings} dated 08.05.2007 for the^{reasonthat she committedirregularities} when closing/writing ticket numbers^{in the StatisticalTicket} Accountable and Record^{(STARJdocument while perfonningduty on} 20.01.2007 on the route Vikarabad^{to Shankerpally on Bus No.2667. it} is alleged that the authorities did not^{follow CircularPD-05/2009} dated 23.02.2009 whereunder three^{chances are to be given in the} event of a lapse, and further^{the terminationproceedingswere passed} without even affording time to the^{petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, she} raised an Industrial Dispute vide ID^{No.73 of 2012 before the Labour} Court-t, Hyderabad. The Labour Court,^{after due enquiry,passed an} Award dated 13.06.2013 directing^{reinstatementof the petitioner} afresh, without^r:ontinuit5r of seMce,^{or backwages, or attendant} benefits. Challenging the same, the^{presentpetitionis filed.}

¶23

Heard Mr. P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned^{courtsel for the} petitioner, and Ms. K.V. Phanisree, learned^{counsel appearingon} behalf of Mr. M. Ram Mohan^{Reddy,learned Standing Counsel for} respondent-Road Transport Corporation'

¶24

Learned corrnsel for the petitioner while making sullmissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would submit that the Labour Court, having

¶25

¶26

u,P _37979 _2071 NBK, J

¶27

held that the punishment o[ termination from service is highly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, ought to have reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service. He relies on the judgment of Hon' ble Supreme Court in Colour-Chem Limited v. A.L. Alaspurkarl.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary,^justifies the impugned Award and submits that the Award has been passed after due consideration ofthe facts ofthe case and material on record, and therefore the Award needs no interference.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass, which is precisely with regard to relief granted by the Labour Court while observing that the punishment is highly disproportionate vis-i-vis the misconduct. At this^juncture, it is relevant to refer to the^judgment of Hon' ble Supreme Court in Colour-Chem (supra) wherein the petitioners therein/workmen were terminated from service flor sleeping while on night shift duty. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of workmen with continuity of service, however deprived them of backwages. When the matter went before the^Hon' ble Supreme Court, it was held in paragraph 14 of the iudgment as follows:

¶30

So far as this point is concerned it has to be held that when the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charges held proved against them reinstatement with continuity of service was the least that could have been ordered in their favour.

' rsss 1:1^scc rsz

wp 31979-2013 NB(, J

Considering the^{respectivesubmissions,and perusing the} record and also the^{judgment in Colour-Chem[supra), the writ} petition is disposed of^{holding that the petitioneris entitled to} reinstatement wjth^{continuityof seryice. The rest of the impugned} Award holds^{good in the facts of the case. No costs. Miscellaneous} petitions pending, if any,^{shall stand closed.}

¶37

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSI T NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

\ CTION OFFICER

To. ' "'1 . Th" Presiding Officer' The Labour Court-|, Chandra Vihar' Nampally' Hyderabad, A.P. 'N/anager, APSRTC' Vikarabad Bus Depot' Ranga Reddy

¶42

z. ffiub"p"i DistrictA.P.

¶43

s. o";CCio^{Sr P. VenkateswarRao' Advocate[OPU9J} . ;. i;; CCs to^{c;p for Labou' High Court for the Stateof Telangana'at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶44

E ii|.i'bc t" $ii^{ri71.'RamMohan Reddy,SC for Transport corporation[oPUC]}

¶45

b- Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

(*'

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10912024

ORDER

1H E ttA,'€
(
t (
c
; zttEBzozs
-5
t Dpgp6rt;vl (_) ,

¶52

WP.No.37979 of 2013

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS (r K^,^p- \ 1/ \u{ 1cq;.c>

N. Prameela Bai, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Prameela Bai, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Chettukindi Shivraj alias Kammari Shivraj Vs K. Veera Reddy

Sri Satyam Spinning and Weaving Mills, Hyderabad and Another Vs the Govt.of Ap by Prl.Secy.Labour, Employment and 3 Others

Smt.S.Krishnamma Vs S.Rajender Reddy

M/s Sairam Polymers Vs S. Subhash

A. Raja Goud, Vs The Presiding Officer

M. Tirupathi, Karimnagar Dist. Vs M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd and 3 Othrs