WA/2233/2005 of Md.Mustafa, Vs Venkateswara Hatcheries Limited, on 29 November 2005

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

And

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT APPEAL NO.2233 of 2005

29[th] November 2005

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated23.06.2005 in W.P.NO.34757 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

Md.Mustafa, S/o.Sri Mohiuddin,R/o. Nr.Navodaya Public School, Srinivasanagar, Jagadgirgutta, Hyderabad.

AND

...APPELLANT

1 Venkateswara Hatcheries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Venkateswara House, 3-5-807 & 808/1, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029. Venkateswara House, 3-5-807 & 808/1, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029.

2 The Chairman & Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.

...RESPONDENTS

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

And

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT APPEAL NO.2233 of 2005

JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao)

Heard both the sides.

At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

The appellant, who is the employee of the first respondent herein, filed this WritAppeal aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2005 in W.P.No.34757 of 1998, filed atthe instance of the first respondent herein, wherein the award dated 08.07.1998 inI.D.No.153 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad was sought to bechallenged in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant.

On an application under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,the Labour Court found that the appellant is entitled for reinstatement with backwages as such the said award was challenged by the first respondent. The learnedSingle Judge found that there is sufficient delay in filing the application and therebeing no proper justification as the appellant abandoned the service, sought toexercise his discretion restricting the back wages to 50% only.

Having heard either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that admittedly there is no justification on the part of the appellant herein toassail the impugned order in regard to the punishment in the discretion exercised bythe learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Though anattempt has been made on behalf of the appellant, in spite of the order of the learnedSingle Judge about the place of posting other than Hyderabad, the said submissionsare totally beyond scope of the reference and constitute independent cause of actionfor which the remedy lies elsewhere. In the circumstances, we do not find any meritsin the appeal.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. However, it shall be open forthe appellant to make an application before the first respondent in regard the placeof posting and the same would be considered on merits in accordance with law.

_________________(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)

___________________(R.SUBHASH REDDY, J)

29[th ]November 2005RRB