Allowed

A. Raja Goud, v. The Presiding Officer

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024WP/6606/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a Labour Court award that denied continuity of service to a terminated bus conductor, held that reinstatement with continuity of service was the minimum relief required as dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.

A. Raja Goud, Vs The Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR TI-TE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6606 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

A. Raja Goud, S/o. Ganga Goud, Aged about 37 years, Contract Conductor (c.980568), APSRTC, Miyapur-l Bus Depot, Hyderabad, A.P.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Preshing Offrcer, The Labour Court-ll, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad, A.P.

¶12

2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Miyapur-l Bus Depot, Hyderabad, A.,f . .\

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the award in l.D. No_ 3 ot 2O12 dl. 25-08-2012 on the file the Respondent No.1 herein and declare it for not awarding continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages also is bad.g: arbitrary, illegal.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR I-ABOUR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. K.V.PHANI SREE, REP. FOR SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

)

wp_66o6-2014 NBK,I

ORDER:

The petitirrner^{was appointed as Conductor on contractualbasis} in the^{year 2009.He was terminatedfrom service vide proceedings} dated^{02.01.20 t0 for the reason that he committedcash and ticket} irregularities^{while performing duty on 12'08'2009 on routeNo'229} on Bus^{No.5494' He preferredan Appeal before the Divisional} Manager,^{Sanathnagar Division' and the same was reiected on} 24.04.201,0,^{ancl the Reviewpetition filed before the Regibnal} Manager^{was :rlsoreiected on L2 'Lt'2010' Thereafter' he raised an} Industrial^{Dispute vide ID No'3 of 2Ol2befote the Labour Co'Ytt-I:} . Hyderabad.^{The Labour Court' after due enquiry' passedan Award} dated25.08.20,l'2directingreinstatementofthepetitionerafresh, without^{continuityof service, or baclowages,or attendantbenefits.} Challenging^{the same,the present peritionis filed'}

¶25

Heard Mr'^{P VenkateshwerRao' learned counsel for the} petitioner;^{and Ms' K'V' Phani sree' learned counsel appearing on} behalf^{of Mr. M' Ram Mohan Reddy' learnedStanding Counsel for} respondent-^{Ro rd Transport Corporation'}

¶26

Learnetl^{counselfor the petitioner while making submissions on} the lines^{of wrrLt affidavit' would submit that the Labour Crlurt' having} held^{that the punishment of termination from seryiceis; shockingly} disproPo^{rtionate tothe gravitY of misconduct, oughtto} have

¶27

¶28

wp_6arar5_2o14 N6( .,

¶29

I I

¶30

reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service. He relies on the judgment of Hon' ble Supreme Court in Colour-Chem Limited v. A.L. AIaspurkarl.

¶31

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 needs no interference.

¶32

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 shockingly disproportionate vis-ivis the misconduct. At this^juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon' ble Supreme Court in Colour-Chem (iupral wherein the petitioners therein/workmen were terminated from service for sleeping while on night shift duty. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of workmen with continuity of service, however deprived them of bacloarages. When the matter went before the Hon' ble Supreme Court, it was held in paragraph 14 of the ludgment^{as follows:}

¶33

So far as this point is concemed it has to be held that wh€n 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.

'^{rsgs (:) scc rsz}

wp_6505_2014 NBK, ]

Considering^{the respective submissions, and perusing the} record and^{also the judgment in Colour-Chem (supra)' the writ} petitionisdisposedofholdingthatthepetitionerisentitledto reinstatement 'with^{continuity of service'The rest of the impugned} Award holds^{good in the facts of the case. No costs. Miscellaneous} petitions pencling, if any,^{shall stand closed'}

¶38

AD SD/.A.V.S.P ASSISTANT^REGI TRAR

/TTRUE^COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To, 1 The Presicling Officer' The Labour Court-ll' Chandra Vihar' " NamPallY' HYderabad^Telangana'

¶43

The^{Depot lvlanager' TGSRTC'Miyapur-l Bus Depot' Hyderabad' A'P'}

¶44

One^{CC to SRI P VENKATESWARRAO' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶45

One^{CC to SRI M RAM MOHANREDDY' SC FOR TSRTCTOPUSI '</sup>}

¶46

s Two cc:;^{to Gp FoR LABouR, High courtfor the state of reranganaat} HYderabacl [OUT]

¶47

Two^{CD CoPies} BSR GJP

?t'\q.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110912024

1 - S IAr (-
(
0 4 tqii 2[25

¶52

ORDER

¶53

WP.No.6606 of²⁰¹⁴

¶54

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION'} WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

8^q" rc\o'{

A. Raja Goud, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Raja Goud, 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

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

M. Prabhakar, Vs The Presiding Officer