Telangana High Court
WP/27615/2007 of G.Rajanarsu Vs The Honble Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- on 26 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27615 of 2007 Dated 26th December, 2007 Between G.Rajanarsu …Petitioner and The Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, at Hyderabad, rep. By its Presiding Officer, and, anr. …Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 27615 of 2007
Between
Dated 26[th] December, 2007
G.Rajanarsu
…Petitioner
and
The Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Hyderabad, rep. By its Presiding Officer, and, anr.
…Respondents.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 27615 of 2007
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:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the awarddated 31-12-2004 passed in I.D.No. 16 of 2003 by the learnedPresiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt, Hyderabad.
The petitioner was employed as Coal Filler in the SingareniCollieries Company Limited in the year 1962 and subsequently, hewas promoted as Trammer in the year 1981. The petitioner retired fromservice on 21-7-1994 on attaining the age of superannuation.Disputing the entries with regard to his age in the service register, thepetitioner raised dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.When the said dispute was not referred for adjudication, heapproached this Court and pursuant to the order of this Court, the same was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad and numbered as ID.No.16 of 2003. In thesaid ID, NIL award was passed on 27-6-2003. The petitioner filed anapplication in I.A.No. 50 of 2003 to reopen the case in ID.No. 16 of2003 and the same was allowed on 4-1-2004. In lieu of chiefexamination, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 3-8-2004 and thereafter,though the matter was adjourned for about eight occasions, thepetitioner was absent. Hence, the Labour Court passed ex parte order,without granting any relief.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that asthe petitioner vacated the quarter allotted to him, he could not appearbefore the Labour Court.
The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitionercannot be accepted. Having raised the dispute and when it wasreferred to the Tribunal, the petitioner ought to have been diligent inprosecuting the case before the Tribunal. In fact, final order waspassed on 27-6-2003 and it was reopened only on the application filedby the petitioner in I.A.No. 50 of 2003, and, even after reopening thematter, he was not diligent and did not turn up in spite of eightadjournments granted for cross-examination. Therefore, I do not findany illegality in the Award passed by the Labour Court. Further, theLabour Court has passed the Award as early as on 31-12-2004 andthis Writ Petition is filed on 20-12-2007. There is no explanation at allin the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition for the abnormaldelay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissedat the admission stage. No order as to costs.
DATE: 26-12-2007.Msnr.
----------------------------------
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY