Disposed¶51

The Depot Manager v. R.Padmavathi and Ano.

Telangana HC15 Dec 2025WP/3157/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (Hyderabad), W.P. No.3157 of 2008, decided 15.12.2025 by Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao; APSRTC Depot Manager (Mehdipatnam) v. R. Padmavathi (ex-conductor) and Labour Court-I; industrial dispute I.D. No.200/2005; reinstatement Award dated 18.06.2007 published in G.O.RT.No.1626; writ disposed by modifying Award to direct reckoning of continuity of service for gratuity purposes only; certiorari petition under Article 226 with Section 151 CPC stay application; no cases cited; no monetary quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by modifying the Labour Court Award: petitioner directed to consider respondent No.1's continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity and to grant the same accordingly; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶51

The Depot Manager Vs R.Padmavathi and Ano. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the Award dated 18.06.2007 in I.D. No.200/2005 passed by Labour Court-I (A.P.), Hyderabad (published on 02.08.2007 in G.O.RT.No.1626 dated 16.07.2007), reinstating respondent No.1 with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages, should be quashed as bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Having considered the submissions of both counsel, the Court was inclined to modify the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.200/2005 dated 18.06.2007.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

By way of modification of the Award, the petitioner-management is directed to consider respondent No.1's continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity and to grant the same to her accordingly.

¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot, seeking quashing of the Award dated 18.06.2007 in I.D. No.200/2005 of Labour Court-I (A.P.), Hyderabad (published 02.08.2007 in G.O.RT.No.1626 dated 16.07.2007), which reinstated respondent No.1, a conductor removed from service after a 21.09.2004 check (charge memo No.AO/428735) detecting failure to issue tickets despite collecting fare, with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. Respondent No.1 had been reinstated on 10.08.2007 subject to the writ result and was subsequently again dealt with in fresh disciplinary proceedings, leaving her out of service. Held: the writ petition stood disposed of by modifying the Award - the management was directed to consider respondent No.1's continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity and to grant the same to her accordingly; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR T-HE STATE OF TELANGANA^{[ 3304I} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRTJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETIT|ON NO: 3157 OF 2008

¶6

Between

¶7

The Depot Manager, A'SRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot, Hyderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER AND

¶9

1 [rir3l#:I:3], Ex. co nd uctor, E. No. 2082 t 3, N o 8e, H. No. 452, Arkapu ri, 2 The Labour court-1, A.p. Hyderabad, rep. by its presiding officer.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanCes stated in the affidavit iileo therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned ,*r"' dt'18'06.2007 made in r.D.No.20or2oos the Labour court-r(A.p.), Hyderabad published on 02'08.2007 in G.o.Rr.No.1626, dt. 16.07.200/ ailowing the petition in part and direction the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service together with continuity of service and other attendant benefits but without back wages and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and in valid.

¶12

)

¶13

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 pteased to order stay of execution of Award dt.18.06.2007 made in l.D.No.2o0t2oo5 the Labour court-r(A.p.), Hyderabad pubrished on 02.0g.200r in G.o.Rr.No.1626,

¶14

¶15

t-16.O7.2007 except in regard to reinstatement pending disposal of the above ../ Writ petition.

¶16

Gounsel for the Petitioner: sRl R.ANURAG, sc FoR TSRTC counsel for the Respondent No.1: sRl N.v.L.NARASIMHA RAo Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR LABOUR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT} HYDERABAT)

¶19

C-., THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAIYIAVARAP'URA"IESHUIAR RAO}

157 0F

1 of

Between:

The Depot Manager,^{APSRTC,MehdipatnamDepot, Hyderabad.} Petitioner

¶24

AND

¶25

R. Padmavathi and another'

¶26

.. Respondents

¶27

OIiT'T5TiE

¶28

This Writ Petition^{is filed to quash the Awardpassedby} the Labour Court-I^{(A.P.), Hyderabad, d'ated 18.06.2007in I'D'} No.2Oo /2005.

¶29

Heard Sri R. Anurag^{Reddy, learned Standing Counsel} for TGSRTC,^{and Sri N.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learnedcounsel} for respondent^{No- 1.}

¶30

Brief facts^{of the case are as follows:}

¶31

(a) First^{respondentwas engaged as casual conductor} on daily^{wage basis w.e.f. 25.tl.lgg6and her serviceswere} regularised^{w.e.f. O1.O1.1998.While the 1st respondent was} conducting^{Bus No.882 on route 5cll23(Secunderabadto}

¶32

\ <br>

¶33

¶34

Narsingil on 21.O9.2OO4,^{at about 19'30 hours at stage No'7} Shaikpet, the checking^{officials ofRegionalEnforcement} squad, Hyderabad.,^{exercised a check and detectedthat the 1"t} respondent failed to issue^{tickets to a lady passenger despite} collecting the requisite fare of Rs.2/-^{from the passengers} boarding point itself i.e. Manikonda.^{The passengerswere} found alighting without tickets at Shaikpet.

¶35

(b) The checking officials confronted^{the ticketless} passengers to the lst respondent and obtained^{their statement} and witness statement of the co-passengers.^The1"t respondent attested the passengers' statement-^{The checking} officials prepared a charge memo bearing^{No.AO/428735on} the spot detailing the irregularities^{detectedby them and} served on the lst respondent, which^{was acknowledgedby her} without any dispute. The lst respondent^{submitted her spot} explanation. Based on the evidence^{onrecordand the} explanation.of the l"t respond,ent to the^{charge memo,she was} placed under suspension and was issued^{with chargesheet-} The 1"t respondent^acknowledged the^{chargesheetand} submitted his explanation,^which was^{found tobe} unsatisfactory. As^{such, a regular enquiry} was^ordered.

.(
qr I
:i i"'

(c) In the domestic enquiry, the charge was^proved and she was^{removed from the service. Aggrieved by the same, she} raised a^{disputein I.D. No.20O/2005,and the Labour Court} passed^{the following Award on 18.06.2007:}

¶41

"In tle^{result the petttion} is^partlg alloued. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into seruice with continuitg of seruice and all otlrcr attendant benefits but without back uages. The award shall be implemented bg the^respondent utithin one month from tte date of^pubticatton of tlrc auard. Autard is arcordinglg^pa.ssed.'

¶42

\ \

¶43

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits that aggrieved by the^{Award passedby the Labour Court, they preferredthe} present^{Writ Petition.He further submits that after the l"t} respondent^{was reinstated into service on 1O.O8.20O7 and} posted to^{Midhani Depot subject to the result of the Writ} Petition.^{After reinstatementinto service, she was again issued} some other^{disciplinaryproceedingsand now she is out of} service,^{and that she is no way connectedwith the rolls of the} Corporation.'

¶44

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 did not dispute the submission^{made by the learned counselfor the petitioner.}

¶46

... ! ..:.

¶47

'.; -,'.., . , t..,;Jrtl,"i,,,:.'..,'..,r .,... :-r'"=P" ..,;{:,1,,:;',,1;-i.-.,ir.,i,$f f,-i",i.#,.'fi,.al-iui.riruiili&}tt,.

¶48

nilvrng constdered the above submissions, this Court inclined to modify the Award passed by the Labour court in

¶49

I.D. No.2OO/2OOS, dated 1g.06.2007 as follows:

¶50

The petitioner is directed to consider respondent No. l,s continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity and to grant the same to her accordingly.

¶51

7 with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed

¶53

SD/-S. MALLTKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTTON OFFTCER

The Presidingofficer, Labourcourt-1, TS, Hvderabad. 2. one cc to sBIB.ANqB{g, sc FoR rsHrd iop0bi 3. Two ccs to Gp FoR LABouR, Hign court roine-stdte of relangana, at

¶60

. lvdeqabad. [OUT] 4. ONE CC tO SRI N V L NARASIMHA RAO, AdVOCAIE TOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies PSK. BSK

/, ?

HIGH COURT

DATED i1511212025