Dismissed

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Ecil, Hyderabad v. Shri.L.Satyanarayana, Hyderabad

Telangana HC1 Jul 2025WP/26591/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an industrial tribunal award upholding removal of a Nuclear Fuel Complex helper who was absent due to mental illness and removed after an ex parte inquiry. The court held the tribunal's equitable award of Rs.20,000 compensation was within jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[3300 ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26591 OF 2005

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-500062

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Shri L.Satyanarayana, 39-128, Sanhay Gandhinagar, Guru Gutta, Near Jagatgirigutta, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari after calling for records connected with the proceedings initiated in lD.No.40/2003 on the file of Hon'ble Central Govt. lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and u nconstitutio nal and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and non-est in the eye of law.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶16

Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI K.BALAGOPAL

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

-ai4ia-f. . t,i;:

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NAGESH BHBEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.26591 of 2OCr5

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Writ Petition is hled challenging th -- Award dated Ol.l7.2OO4 in I.D. No.40 of 2003 passed 1:,r, the Centra_l Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - .abour Court, Hyderabad, seeking to quash the same as illegal arbitrary, and contrar5z to law.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that Respondent joined Nuclear Fuei Complex as a Helper/B in 1)73 ald was unauthorisedly absent from dut5r from 15.05.19t:r2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the rr:spondent on 26.08.1982. Since he did not participate in the inquiry ordered on 10.02.1983, an ex parte inquiry was held. The findings (dated 14.05. 1983) were accepted, and he was removecl liom service on 16.06.1983. The respondent filed an appeal in S,:ptember 1990 i.e., after lapse of seven years seeking reinstater.rrent in service and the sarne was rejected on 11.10.1990 as time-barred and without merit. In 2003, he frled an I.D. No. 4O ol'1,1003 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad and the Tribunal upheld his remr:r,a_l, deeming it

¶23

2 NBK,J W.P. No.26591of 2005

¶24

legal, but awarded Rs.20,000/- compensation, contrary to established rules that do not provide compensation for removal. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is frled.

¶25

Heard Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for petitioner and Sri K.Balagopat, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the record.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent flled counter affidavit stating that respondent joined the petitioner's orgalisation, Nuclear Fuel Complex, as Helper-B on 23.10.1973 and worked continuously until 15.05.1982. On that date, he fell severely ill and was diagnosed with Manic Depressive Psychosis, a condition that impairs rational thinking ald decision-making. Due to his illness, he was unable to participate in the departmental inquiry initiated against him for unauthorized absence. The management proceeded with the inquiry ex parte and removed him from service on 16.06.1983. The respondent was recovered in 1990 and immediately sought to rejoin duty. He was served with the dismissal order only after his recovery and liled an appeal, which was rejected as time-barred. Subsequently, he raised a dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad, which, after \ \

¶27

'.3 ,..&'jl{ -- t ,/ ,.... /

¶28

NBKJ w.P. No.25591of 200s

¶29

¶30

considering the circumstances, awarded hir-n a lumpsum compensation of Rs.20,OO0/-. He further statecl^".hat respondent emphasizes his financial hardship, lacking a legular income, and deems the withholding of the modest compt,-r sation unjust.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by lc,'rth the learned counsel and a perusal of the record, it is er"ident that the Tribunal, a-fter considering the respondent's m:rdical condition concluded that the remova-l was legal but awarded compensation. It may be noted that the award ol compensation, though not explicitly provided for in the rules, rvirs based on the principles of justice and equity, considering tl.ie respondent's long service ald the nature of his illness. There iore, this Court finds that the Tribunal's award was within its 'urisdiction, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismisse,l. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendir:.q in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶34

-'50^t- AH S. GOWRI SHANKAR iISTANT REGIS TRAR //TRUE COPY// ry' ,SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

One CC to SRI K.BALAGOPAL, Advocate tOpUCl^,.

¶37

one cc to DEPUTY soLICrroR GENERAL oF rNDrA High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OpUC]

¶38

)f1 - State of Telangana r-Lt!)., 3. Two CD Copies BSR LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10712025

ORDER

/:
.r,,;i<br>i' 2I i:P 20ffi
t. ,,
'/
-i.. ' t'

¶43

WP.No.26591 of 2005

¶44

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶45

WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

6
"L^
a q
I

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Ecil, Hyderabad v. Shri.L.Satyanarayana, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Ecil, Hyderabad v. Shri.L.Satyanarayana, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bobby Ratandeep Vaddi Vs State of Telangana

Smt.M.Anuradha Vs v.Karuna

Smt. G.Tulasi Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

B.Ramulu Vs The Superintending Engineer

Smt. M. Amrutha Vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission

K. Ravinder Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 4 others