Allowed

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal II

Telangana HC11 Mar 2025WA/1156/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals challenging an order dismissing writ petitions arising from an industrial dispute regarding termination of services of workmen. The High Court set aside the impugned order for relying on findings from previously remanded litigation and restored the writ petitions to original numbers for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned common order dated 06.11.2023 set aside; Writ Petitions restored to original numbers for fresh decision by the Learned Single Judge.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹¹⁴⁶ I

¶2

Itrl

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVi

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTTNG CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HONOURAALE S#iSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶7

WRITAP PEAL NOs: 1159 and 1156 of 2023

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1159 O F 2023

¶9

writ Appeal under crause 15 of the Letters patent prefened against the order dated 0611112023 passed in w.p.No.3357B of 2010 0n the fire of the High court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

POWER GR|D CORPORAT|ON.OF_tNDtA LTD., Rep. by its Manager, (Human Resources) tucg comprex, i.'8.'n'olf,,'s""rnoerabad. present 3}$iffi:i?95i.slxs"JB8'El%*n'ltll,:*g"att[ff^:E[:il::,ss

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

THE INDUSTRTAL TRTBUNAL_I, Rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad.

¶15

The-NTPC Ltd, 400 KV Hyderabad Sub_Station Kz itJ s.i,"t"'v, n-ft " : tT,i :X f,%?I,fi;.!i& # lila p2 r I nidn, ""oilil;"d;

¶16

Present addiess. The NTpc Lto ",ibo rv-nite'rabad sub-Statiori Karmika Sangham, Rep. bv its S MedchalMalkajsiri-Distri;?:retary'^{1-71' Ghandpur vittage bhiG;;; it/l;;U;[}

¶17

The Management of NTPC Ltd., _400 lN Sub_Station, Rep. by its Generat Manager Ghanaouram .llilqoe, ehlir;;r;"H;;; Reddy Dist... present Address NTpc [td. .crrvpiiiinz'6il]-p;s;'il,ors premises, Kavadiouda Ro a d, Ka vad ig ud a, s ec u n d 5rioiolJ J" griXirio'o"ao.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the order dated 06..1 1.2023 of the Learned Single Judge passed in w.p.33578 ot 2o1o pending disposar of the above writ appear.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under 148 of CPC & under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the} circumstances statecl in ttie affidavit filed in^support of^{the petition, the High} Court may be^pleaserJ to extend the common^{stay orders Dt. 22.01 ..2025 passed} by this Hon'ble High Court in W.A.1159 ot^{2023 and in W.A.1156 ol 2O23} pending admission and disposal of the present Writ Appeals on rnerits in the interest of^justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRABHAKAR SRIPADA,^{Sr. COUNSEL,REP.} FOR SRI VALLURI MOHAN SRINIVAS

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI T.VENKAT RAJU, GP FOR^LABOUR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI T.SRIKANTH REDDY, REP. FOR M/s. K.HEMALATHA

¶26

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1156 OF 2023

¶27

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order daled O611112023^passed in W.P.No.4329 oI 2011 on the file of the High Court.

¶28

Between:

¶29

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, Rep. by its Manager, (Human Resources) MCH Complex, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. Present address. POWER grid corporation of lndia ltd. Southern Region Transmission System-1 , 6-6-8132 and 395 E, Kavadiguda Main Road, Secunderabad - 500 080.

¶30

...APPELLANT

¶31

AND

¶32

The lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad.

¶33

The NTPC Ltd 400 KV Hyderabad, Sub-Station Karmika Sangham, Rep. by its Secretary, H.No.4-3-621, Raghunadhabagh, Sultanbazar, Hyderabad. Present address. The NTPC Ltd 400 KV Hyderabad Sub-Station Karmika Sangham, Rep. by its Secretary, 1-7'1, Ghanapur Village Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶34

The Management of NTPC Ltd, 400 KV Sub-Station, Rep. by its General Manager Ghanapuram Village, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Dist... Present Address NTPC Ltd. CFFV⁺ JR2 Old Praga Tools Premises, Kavadiguda Road, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad, Telangana 500080.

...RESPONDENTS

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thg High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 2S-11-2010 in I.A. No. 43 of 2010 in lD No. 19 of 1992 passed by the Hon'ble lndustrial Tribunal-ll at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶39

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶40

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 suspend the operation of the order dated 06.'1 1.2023 of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4329 of 2011 on the file of this Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶41

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶42

Petition under 148 of CPC & 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 extend the common stay orders Dt. 22.01.2025 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in W.A.1159 of 2023 and in W.A.1156 of 2023 pending admission and disposal of the present Writ Appeals on merits in the interest of justice.

¶43

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRABHAKAR SRIPADA, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI VALLURI MOHAN SRINIVAS

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI T.VENKAT RAJU, cP FOR LABOUR

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI T.SRIKANTH REDDY, REP. FOR M/s. K.HEMALATHA

¶46

The Gourt delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶47

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶48

WRIT APPEAI Nos.1159 & 1156 of 2023

¶49

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief .Iustice :)ujoy Paul)'.

¶50

Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri V. Mohan Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri T. Venkat Raju, learned Government Pleader for Labour Department, for respondent No.l and Sri T. Srikanth Reddy, learneC counsel represents Ms. K. HemalathrL, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶51

2 Since both the matters are arising out of industrial dispute referred to the Industria-l Tribunai, F{yderabad (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"), on th e joint r:equest of learned couns,el lbr the parties, these matters \4'ere an alogously heard

¶52

These intra-court appeals assail the impugned common order dated 06.17.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.33578 of l2O1O and 4329 of 2Ol1

¶53

¶54

¶55

4 The facts in W.A.No.1159 of 2O23 are referred for the purpose of disposal of these appea-ls.

¶56

There is chequered history of this litigation. The parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. The industrial dispute was initiaily referred by the then Government and registered as I.D.No. 19 of 1992 before the Tribunal for deciding the point whether the marragement of N.T.P.C. 4OO, K.V. Hyderabad Sub-station, Ghanapuram, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, was justihed in terrninating the services of nine workmen. The Tribunal passed its first Award on 23.O9.1993. This Award became subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.32 19 of 1994. A learned Single Judge, by order dated 2l .OI .2OO4 , dismissed the said writ petition. Dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant/ employer Iiled W.A.No.448 of 2OO4 which was allowed on 10.10.2006 by setting aside the award dated 23.O9.1993 as well as the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.01.2OO4. Th,e matter was remitted to the Tribunal "for fresh consideration and disposal on meits". The said order of Division Bench ',r,,as assailed before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civi! No.1643 of 2007. The Supreme Court t passed the following order: t

"We have learned the learned counsel for t he

¶61

parties

¶62

Tl-rese special leave petitions are direcr_ed against the^judgment and order dated 10. 10.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabail whereby the matter has been remitted to thc Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad for fresh consideration and disposal on merits.

¶63

ln the peculiar facts and circumstances of ttris case, we cleem it appropriate to request the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the rnatter as expeditiously as possibie, in aly event, within a period of six monthsr from the date of communication of r,his ordcr.

¶64

'lLre petitioners would be at liberty to hle lresh application(s) under Sectiorr lZ'B of the Industrjal Disputes /\cL, 7947, which would be decided by tJre Tribunal within tu,o months from the date of its filing.

¶65

Th e special leave petitions are disposed ol u,i :h the aforementioned observation and direction."

¶66

Learned counsel for the appellant/emplo),er submits that before the Tribunal, the principal stand of the employer rvas that the industrial <lispute was referred by .^{the State Govr:rnment} whereas "appropriate Government" is the Central Government. Learned Single Judge has recorded alleged concession of iearned counsel for the appellant/employer that the appellant/employer did not press the point relating to^{..appropriate} Government,,. It is argued that no concession of Advocate can ct-eate a jurisdiction and this question of law needs to be decided.

(

7 . In addition, it is submitted that since beginning, the stand of the appellant/employer before the Tribunal was that the nine terminated workmen for whom industrial dispute was referred for adjudication were not appointed, engaged and employed by the appellant/employer. They were employees of the Contractors. For this purpose, a sizable number of documents were filed which were supported by the management witnesses while entering the witness box. The Tribunal brushed aside those documents and their evidence by a bald hnding that the management has frled number of documents to confuse the Tribunal.

¶71

The appellant/employer when raised aforesaid points before the learned Single Judge in the present matter, following findings were given:

¶72

" 12. All the issues raised in the present Writ Petition have already been answered in the earlier round of litigation and this Court concurs with the findings given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3219 of 1994. The matter was remanded only on the issue of the authority of the State Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal as on that date and the Industrial Tribunal after discussing the evidence placed by the petitioner company more particularly the GazeLte notification specifically dated 31.12.1998 published under Section 27 (Al(l) of the Act and the letter of the Ministry of Labour & Employment dated O9.O3.2OO5 had held that the State Government is the competent

\ \

.ui(li:;-Ft rt_

i l I I I I

authority to refer the dispute to the Industriar rribunal as on thar rlate."

¶80

It is submitted that learned Single Judge has ba.sed his findings on the order passed in W.p.No.3 219 of 1994, which findings, by no stretch of imagination, are binding. Once the order of learned Single Judge in previous round in W.p.No.3219 of 1994 is set aside by directing fresh consideration on :merits, the earlier findirLgs paJes into insignificance. Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the merits on fresh adjudication and erroneously based on the findings given in the previous round.

¶81

Learned c,f,unsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supported the impugned common order and submitted that the indurstrial dispute was referred way_back in the year 1992.

¶82

We have heard Iearned counsel for the parties at leneth.

¶83

L2. The journe.T of this litigation shows that in the prerrious round by the first an.ard dated 23.Og.Igg3, the Tribunal decided the reference in fa,rour of the workmen which got a stamp of approval by the zr learned Single Judge of this Courr- in W.P.No.32 L9 of 1994. dated 21.01.2OO4. However, this order of Iearned Single Judge could not sustain scrutiny i, W.n.N-",++S

¶84

¶85

¶86

of 2004. The Supreme Court also did not disturb the findings of the Division Bench in W.A.No.448 of 2OO4 and merely directed S the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously possible, in any event, within a period of six months. In turn, the impugned award dated 25.11.2010 was passed which became subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions.

¶87

13 We find substantial force in the argr-rment of learned counsel for the appellant/employer that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that a1l issues raised by the present appellant/ employer are alswered in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, he concurred with those findings- In our opinion, since earlier order of learned Single Judge ln W.P.No.3219 of 1994 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for "fresh consideration on merits" , there was no^{justification} in basing the impugned common order on the basis of frndings'given in W.P.No.32l9 of 1994. For this singular reason alone, the impugned common order of learned Single Judge in both the W.P.Nos.33578 of 2010 and 4329 of 2O11 cannot be permitted to stand

¶88

\ t

¶89

Resultaltly, both the Writ^{Appealsare disposed of by} setting aside the impugned common^{order dated 06.11.2023} passed in WP.Nos.33578 of 2OIO and^{4329 of 2011. The} W.P.Nos.33578 of 2OlO and 4329 of 2Ol1^{are restoredto their} original numbers. Considering^{the history of litigation, we} request the learned Single Judge to^{make endeavour to decide} the matters aJiesh before ensuing summer^{vacation.lt is made} clear that this Court has not^{expressed any opinion on merits of} the case. No costs.

¶90

Interl,rcutory applications, if any pending, shall^also

¶91

stald closed

¶92

SD/.T. KRISHNA^KUMAR REGISTRAR E.g //TRUE COPY// , I sEcrr^{ON OFFICER}

¶93

To,

¶94

1 . The Chairman,^{lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad'}

¶95

The Secretary,^{NTPC Ltd, 400 KV Hyderabad Sub-Station Karmika Sangham'} H.No.4-3-621,^{n"gnrnaihJ[igh,S'i[unb"2"r.,-HyderabadPresent address'} iri" Sl.-r"ur)/,^{r.rrld Lti'.itii'r.iV nv<jeiirtosud-station Karmikasansham,} i^:ii :d;;;dl.^{Villase 6n"tk"tjt. ru('naal' MedchalMalkajsiri District'}

¶96

The General^{Manager'Managementof NTPC. I td400 lN Sub-Station'} Ghanapuram^{virrage, ehaiil?i?"iii{ni".n"ddvbist Present Address NTPC} Ltd. cFFV⁺ .lR2^{old pilti" i"ijr.'Ftli'iiLifuvaoibudaRoad'Kavadisuda'} SeCunderabad,^{Telangana 500080'}

¶97