Telangana High Court
WP/8187/2001 of Veer Thirupathi, Vs The Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8187 of 2001 Between: Veera Thirupathi, S/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Mancherami, Thogarrai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAOWRIT PETITION NO : 8187 of 2001
Between:
Veera Thirupathi, S/o. Venkataiah,R/o. Mancherami, Thogarrai Post,Sultanabad Mandal, Krimnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C,
Karimnagar -I, Depot., Karimnagar District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased tocall for the records from the first respondent in I.D. No. 86/96 and quash the awardpassed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 86/96 dated 7/8/2000 published on 4-11-2000 upholding the order of removal passed by the second respondent and granthim the relief of reinstatement into service with continuity of service, full back wagesand all other attendant benefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1:GP FOR LABOUR(Not present)
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mrs.P. Rajini Reddy(Not present)
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This matter came up yesterday on 29-12-2004, and heard the learned counselappearing for the petitioner. Since none appeared on behalf of the respondents, thematter was posted to today. Even today also none appears for the respondents.
The petitioner herein, who is an employee/worker, working as a conductor files thiswrit petition, inter alia, seeking to assail the award passed in I.D.No. 86 of 1996dated 07-08-2000, as published in Gazette on 04-11-2000 as bad, illegal and void.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the service in the year 1989, asconductor and he was sought to be removed by the proceedings dated 28-01-1993,in view of certain allegations made against him. Though he has taken departmentalproceedings, the same were not acceded to. Therefore, he raised a dispute underSection.2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was taken up by the respondentNo.1 herein, as I.D.No.86/96. The said claim of the petitioner was contested by therespondent No.2 herein, inter alia, on various grounds including by raising a specificplea. But the Tribunal held that the departmental enquiry is not valid, and therespondent No.2 - Management is prepared to substantiate the charges madeagainst the petitioner.
However, now the contention of the petitioner is that without giving a findingas to the validity of the departmental enquiry, either preliminary, or even in the finalorders, the first respondent sought to reject the dispute holding that the charges, asmade against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner by placing reliance on thedecision reported in “The Cooper Engineering Ltd., v. P.P.Mundhe”[1] submittedthat in the absence of any such finding, as to the validity of the domestic enquiry, theLabour Court could not have been gone into the merits and given the finding. Hence,the writ petition.
Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of the material, it isseen that admittedly in this case, no finding has been given, as preliminary or evenotherwise at any stage nor, there is any consideration in this aspect by the firstrespondent.
In view of the same, as held by the apex court in the aforesaid decision, the entireprocedure adopted by the second respondent is totally in the teeth of mandate aspointed out. In the circumstances, the matter requires to be reconsidered afresh.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned award is set aside. Thematter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and for disposalon merits.
____________________
B. PRAKASH RAO, J.Dt: 30..12..2004.
Rns/ka.To
1 The Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court,Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Karimnagar -I, Depot., Karimnagar District.
3 Two CCs to G.P.for Labour, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT), 4 Two CD copies.