Allowed

Smt. a.Aruna v. Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum Labour Court

Telangana HC10 Sept 2025WP/20395/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workman challenged a 'No Claim' award in an industrial dispute over termination without Section 25F compliance. The High Court set aside the award as non-merits and remitted the dispute to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication with hearing to both sides.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award in ID No.104/2015 dated 12.05.2022 set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal No.1 to adjudicate the reference on merits within three months after hearing both parties; no order as to costs

Smt. a.Aruna Vs Honourable Central… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

132521'

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

{F,

¶8

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO^{: 20395 OF 2023}

¶10

¶11

Between:

¶12

Smt. A.Aruna, Wo.^{TirupathiReddy,Aged about 49 years' Occ house wife'} nlo r s^gte lvarrapui.^{"llicnaiim'updarMandat, Ranga ReddyDistrict,} Hyderabad-37.

...PETITIONER

AND

1 Hon'ble Central Government^{lndustrialTribunal -Cum Labour Court'} Nampally, Near Mozamjah^{i fvlarket,Hyderabad'}

¶17

2.NuclearFuelComplex,Rep.byitsChiefExecutive,DepartmentofAtomic Energy, HYderabad-62

,*a

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affrdavitfiledtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue an order or orders^{particularlyin the nature of writ of certiorari} call for the records^{in ID no1O4of 2o15 on the file of the Hon',blefirst respondent} and set aside^{the same and consequently directthe respondents to reinstatethe} petitioner into service with all^{consequencesbenefits-}

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIG.RAVI MOHAN,Sr' COUNEL, REP' FOR} SRI NARESH KUMAR^GORIGE

¶24

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SMT L.PRANATHI REDDY'} SC FOR CENTRAL^GOVT.

¶26

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶27

*. &

¶28

I I : !, l I

¶29

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶30

RIT PETITI o N No.20 395 0F 2023

¶31

o RDER:

¶32

Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt, L. Pranathi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶33

2- The Detitio ner aD roa ched the Cou seekinq oraver

¶34

as under:

¶35

"...to issue an order or orders particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records in ID No.104 of 2015 on the file of the Honourable 1.r respondent and set aside the same and consequenfly direct the respondents to reinstate the petitiorrer into service with all consequences benefits and pass. .. "

¶36

The cas e of th ED etitio ner in brief as Der the averments m ad in the affidavit filed bv the Detitioner in support of the Dresent wrtt^petit lon rs as un er:

¶37

The petitioner was appointed in the 2nd respondent organization in the year 19BB for sweeping and cleaning. The petitioner along with others on an earrier occasion fired w.p. No.

¶38

¶39

SN,J W.P.No 20395 2023

¶40

29210 of 1998 before this Court for absorbing them as regular employees and to pay other benefits on par with them and during the^pendency of the writ^petition, the^{petitionerwas} terminated from the services in the month of October. 1998. Further the case of the^petitioner is that the W.P. No. 2921 of 1998 was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2000 however, the above said order was set aside by the Division Bench of^this Court vide order dated 23.03.2001^passed in W.A. No.^{1602 of} 7999. The petitloner and others filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13451 of 2001 and the same was withdrawn with a liberty to raise Industrial Dispute on 09.11.2011. The respondent used to take signatures of the^petitioner for every^month on^the wage register and paid the salary in cash to the^petitioner. The petitioner worked for more than eleven (11) years continuously without any break in service and the respondent terminated^the services of the^petitioner orally on 23.10.1998 without^{giving any} notice. The petitioner approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad against the said termination order and the Tribunal^passed award vide I.D. No. 104/2015,^dated t2.05.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the^petitioner approached the Court by filing the^present writ^petition.

¶41

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

¶42

¶43

SN.J W.l'].No 20195 2023

¶44

(A) The aw rd imouoned d ted 12.O5.2O2 2 oassed in ID No.104 of 2O15 on the file of the Cen tra I Government Ind ustria I Tribunal-cum-Labour Co rt at Hvdera bad is extracted hereund er:

¶45

"The Grtvernment of India, Ministry of Labour by irs order N?.L-42O12/?73/2015-IR (DU) dated t.LZ.2OLS referred the followirrg dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, L947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the managernerlt of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman. The reference is,

¶46

THE SCHEDULE

¶47

"Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, l-lyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Smt. A. Aruna W/o Tirupathi Reddy, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of ID Act, lg47? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?',

¶48

The refererce is numbered in this Tribunal as LD. No. |O4/2OL:; and notices were issued to the parties concerned. Both the workman as well as the management entered appearance. The workman also filed claim statement. The management remained ex-parte. No counter or written statement is seen filed by the managernert. The workman also did not take any steps for adducing evidence.

¶49

It i;i Seen that this matter is pending from 28.L2.2OI5. There is no appearance for parties from 28.11.2018. The matter is pending for more than several

¶50

¶51

SN,J W.P.No 20395 2023

¶52

¶53

years without any progress in adjudication of the dispute. It is felt that the workma n/Petition er is not interestedⁱⁿ proceeding the matter any further. Hence, it is felt that it is a proper case where a'No Claim' award can be passed. As such, a'No Claim'award is passed.

¶54

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit."

¶55

DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION:

¶56

Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf oF the^petitioner submits that^{in view of the} fact, that the Award dated 12.05.2022^passed in Industrial Dispute No.104 of 2015 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribu na l-cu m- Labour Court at Hyderabad is admittedly as borne on record not an Award^passed deciding the subject dispute on merits but an order^passed observing as under:-

¶57

"It is seen that this matter is^{pending from} 28.12.2OL5. There is no appearance for^parties from 28.11.2O1a. The matter is pending for more than several years without any^progress in adjudication of the dispute. It is felt that the^{workman/ Petitioner} is not interested in proceeding the matter any further. Hence, it is felt that it is a^proper case where a'No Claim' award can be^passed. As such, a 'No Claim' award is Passed."

¶58

'-'jr- *; -1E ;a=;,7

¶59

SN,J trr.P.No 20395 2023

¶60

)

¶61

Hence, tho impugned Award is not in the interest of justice, since it involr,,es rights between the parties and therefore, a reasonable opportunity should be provided to the petitloner herein and the subject issue in ID No.104 of 2015 in ail fairness needs to be decided and adjudicated on merits.

¶62

Smt. F,ranathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner, since the petitioner did not take any steps for adducing evidence in the subject case and the matter had been pending for several years, without progress and adjudication of the subject dispute. However, admits fairtv thatt he Award n da 1 05. 22 as dinID N .104 of 2015 on the leo fth Ce tral Gov rnm nt In d ustrial T ibunal-cu m-La bour Cou at Hvde ra bad is not a or ed m it an th ref e nt ds hat AD roDra te o e co d e s th tn res of iustice

¶63

7 Ta ki n o jnlg_€gI s k!€IAtig!! :

¶64

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶65

case,

¶66

¶67

SN,J W.P.No 20395²⁰²³

¶68

(b) The submissions^{made by the learned counsel} on behalf of the^{petitioner,the Standing} appearing Counsel for Central^{Government,appearing on} behalf of the respondent^{Nos.1 and 2,}

¶69

(c) The Award impugned^{dated 12'O5'2022passed} in ID No.1O4 of^{2O15on the file of the centralGovernment} Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour^{Court atHyderabad} (referred to and extracted^above),

¶70

(d) The fact as borne^{on record that the subject} reference whether^{the action ofthe Management of} Nuclear Complex,^{Hyderabad by terminating the services} of Smt. A. Aruna,^{W/o Tirupathi Reddy had been in} violation of Section^{25F of the Industrial DisputesAct'} Lg47 and to the^{relief the workmanis entitled to having} remained unanswered^{as evidenton perusal of the award} dated 12.05.2O22^{passedin ID No'1O4 of 2O15 on the file} of the central^{GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour} Court at Hyderabad.

¶71

Thas Court^{in view of the fact as borneon record'} the subiect issue^{ID No.1O4of 2O15 being pending on the} file of the Central^{Government IndustrialTribunal-cum-}

¶72

¶73

SN,J \V.P.No 2039-5 2021

¶74

i i

¶75

.::!st'i,.f^{,,a.a.r.n!].r.:} ?7

¶76

Labour Court at Hyderabad, since 2015 opines that the matter has to be remitted back to the respondent No,1 herein in the interest of justice for adjudication of Industrial Dispute No.1O4 of 2015 on merits.

¶77

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned Award in r'D' No.104 0f 2015 dated 12.O5 .2022 0n the fire of l"t respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is directed to adjudicate and decide the reference i.e.

¶78

"Whether Lhe action of the management of Nucjear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Srnt. A. Aruna Wo Tirupathi Reddy, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of ID Act, tg47? If yes, to 'rvhat relief the workman is entifled to?,,

¶79

¶80

as forwarded by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order dated O7.12.2015 under Section 1o(1)(D) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pass a pp ropriate reasoned orders on merits, in accordance to law as per due procedure by providing a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and also to the respondent No.2 herein withan a period of

) i

SN,J
W.P.No 20395 2023

¶85

three^{(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the}

¶86

order. There^{shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶87

Miscellaneous^{applications,if any, pendingshall stand}

¶88

closed.

¶89

SD/.U. SUDHA ANT REGISTRA

//TRUE COPYII

CTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Central Government lndustrial Tribunal -Cum ur Court, Nampally, Near lVlozamjahi t\ilarket, Hyderabad

¶94

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad-62

¶95

¶96

One CC to SRI NARESH KUIVAR GORtcE, Advocate tOpUCl

¶97

4:^One CC to SMT L.PRANATHI REDDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GoW [oPUc]

¶98

Two CD Copies

t*l I

BSR BS

'{ 01

CC TODAY

,!F

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010912025

ORDER

WP.No.20395 of 2023

riE S 14
(
.J
(J l [[r 2u6 o-Z
t *
:i DATCI rt-.9

¶113

¶114

rit

¶115

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶116

¶117

Smt. a.Aruna v. Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. a.Aruna v. Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maroju Upender Vs The State of Telangana, And 4 Others

M.a.Rasheed Vs The Commissioner of Police and 03 Others

P. Mohan Murali Vs State of Telangana and another

M.Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mandgalla Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana

Sri M. Bikshapathi Vs Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal