Dismissed

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyderabad, v. v.Goverdhan, R.R Dist,and Another

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024WP/991/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award directing payment of compensation to the wife of a deceased employee for dismissal was dismissed. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's award despite the petitioners' objections regarding the length of delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the award directed for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be dismissed without costs.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyderabad, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 991 OF 2007

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyderabad,, Dilsuknagar Depot, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

V.Goverdhan, His Lrs Smt. V. Shakuntala, Wife, H.No.3-1-99/2, Dhanpur, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

The lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Presiding Officer.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award daled 14-11-2005 made in L.D.No.69/2005 of lMustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad, published on 17.1.2006 in GoRt.No.S3 directing the petitioner to pay the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.1 ,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and further ordering payment of interestor 9o/o p.a from the date of the publication of the award by setting aside the enquiry report and the removal order(which were confirmed by the appellate an review authorities) and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and inva lid.

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 1243 oF 20071

¶16

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 order suspension of operation of the award dated 14.1 1.2005 made in

¶17

l.D.No.69/2005 of lndustrial^{Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad publishedon 17.1.2006 in} G.O. Rt.No.S3,^pending disposal^{of the above writ petition,and pass such other} further orders to meet the ends^{of Justice.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, (SC FOR TSRTC)} Gounsel for the Respondent^{No.1 |} "

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.2 : GP FORLABOUR}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

-\ (.\

¶22

€)

¶23

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE^{NAGESHBHEEMAPAXA}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.991^{of 2OO7}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The Writ petition is hled^{seeking to quash the impugned} award dated 14. 11.2005 in^{I.D.No.69/O5passed bythe} Industrial Tribunal II^{Hyderabaddirecting the petitioner to pay} respondent No. 1 a sum of^{Rs. 1,O0,OOO/- inteu of reinstatement} and further directing^{for paymentof interest at the rate of 9Yo pet} annum from the^{date of publicationof the award.}

¶27

The brief facts of^{the caseare that the deceased husband} of respondent No.^{1 was appointedas a driver in the petitioner} Corporation on 2O.01. 1979.^{Basingon the complafuit lodged by} the Chief Inspector of^{Dilsukhnagar Depot on 19.O5'1998 that} the deceased husband^{of respondentNo. 1 misbehaved\rrith him} and basing on the^{enquir)' report and the explanation submitted} by the deceased husband^{of respondentNo.l, the deceased} husband of respondent^{No.l was removedfrom servicevide} proceedings dated 25.11.1998-^{The appeal and the review} application^{prelerred bl' the deceased husband of respondent} No. 1 were rejected^{vide proceedingsdated 08'O 1} '^1999and 2|.O2.2OOO, respectively.^{tnthe meanwhile, the deceased} husband of^{respondentNo.l died on 25'O6'2O0Oand responden'}

¶28

¶29

No. 1 wife of the deceased preferred I.D.No.134 of 2OO3 before the industrial Tribunal -II Hyderabad on O9.O9.2OO3 i.e., 3 years 6 months from the date of dismissal of the review petition on 26.02.2000. The tribunal after hearing learned counsel for respective parties and considering the evidence available on record, partly allowed the I.D vide award dated 14. 11.2005 granting compensation of Rs. I ,OO,OO0/ - and directed the petitioner Corporation to pay the same to respondent No.l-Wife of the deceased employee within one month from the date of passing of award, in default, respondent No. l-wife of the deceased employee is entitled for the said amount together with interest at the rate of 9%o per annum from the date of passing of the award. Challenging the said award dated 14. 11.2OO5 in I.D.No.69 of 20O5, the petitioner Corporation has filed the present writ petition.

¶30

-) )

¶31

Heard Sri M. Raqr Mohan Rao, Iearned Standing Counsel for the petitioner Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for labour appearing for respondent No.2- Industrial Tribunal.

¶32

l.earned Standing Counsel for the petitioner Corporation contended that the tribunal failed to see that the statement of the preliminary Enquiry Offrcer was recorded in the presence of the

¶33

¶34

¶35

deceased^{husband of respondentNo' I whichis suflicient to hold} thatthedeceasedhusbandofrespondentNo.lisguiltyofthe charge leveled^{againsthim.. It is furthercontendedthat ttre} tribunal went^{long in directing the petitiorrer Corporation to pay} an amount of Rs.1,O0,OOO/-^{with interest at the rate of 9o/o per} zulnum which^{is highlY excessive'}

¶36

On the other^{hand, the iearned GovernmentPleaderfor} labour contended^{that a-fterconsidering the evidence and other} material available^{on record,the tribunal has rightly granted} compensation^{of Rs. 1,00,000/-n'ith interest at 9o/o pet annum} vide Award^{dated14. 11.2005 and the same needs no interference} and sought^{for dismissal of the '"vrit petition'}

¶37

From a^{perLlsal of the au'ard dated 14'11'2005'it is evident} that immediately^{after dismissalof the review petitionon} 26.02.2000,^{the deceasedhusband of respondentNo'1 did not} choose to^{prefer I. D during his life time by which itcan be} presumed that^{he is not inclined to challenge the dismissal order} and the^{subsequentappeal and review orders also'Even} respondent No.l^{who is the rvife of the deceased liled I'D after} 3 Yz^{yeatsfrom the date o[ dismissalof the review petition' No} reasons were^{assignedfor the said delay' However' as a measure}

¶38

::4::

¶39

Rs.1,OO,O00/- with interest at the rate of 9'/o per annum. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly' passed the award and no interference is called for with the said award.

¶40

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed. SD'^{. K.AMMAJI} REGISTRAR ASSIST

¶43

,ITRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

The One lndustrial^{CC to SRI Tibunal-ll' M'RAMr' Hyderabad' OHnU REDDY' (SC Repby its FOR Presiding Officer'TSRTC) tOPUCl} High^{courtfor the stateof relangana louTl}

¶46

3 Two^{ccs to Gp FoR} 'reoun,

¶47

4 Two^{CD CoPies} BSK

¶48

PSK 4/'

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912024

ORDER

,t""'
{ 11'- tiA fs
<br>I
;
l.) -)
21 ttB ?025
!,+
Dr Pt1 cr't

¶54

WP.No.991 of 2007

¶55

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

¶57

4.,* @T'r

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyderabad, v. v.Goverdhan, R.R Dist,and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyderabad, v. v.Goverdhan, R.R Dist,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

D. Ramaiah (died) Vs Gutta Radhamma

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

Md. Nayeem Pasha, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

M.Naga Prudwi, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Qazi Ahmed Masood Moinuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Qazi Mohd.Abdul Wahid Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana