Telangana High Court
WP/19468/1999 of Smt. Pasha Begum Vs The Labour Court-III, on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19468 of 1999 Between: A.Hameed Khan (died) per LRs., Smt.Pasha Begum and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY
PRESENT:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.19468 of 1999
Between:
A.Hameed Khan (died) per LRs.,Smt.Pasha Begum and five others.
… Petitioners
And
The Labour Court-III, reptd., by its
Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 4[th] Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and another.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri
A.K.Jayaprakash Rao.
Counsel for respondents : None
This 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 Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari toquash award dated 30-12-1996 passed by respondentNo.1-Labour Court in I.D.No.539 of 1993 in so far as itsdenying back wages and other benefits to thepetitioners except to the extent of one year salary ascompensation is concerned.
The husband of petitioner No.1 (for short “theworkman”) was appointed as attender by respondentNo.2 in the year 1979. He was allowed to work for about12 years. As he was not permitted to resume his dutiesfrom 15-4-1991, he raised the industrial dispute beforerespondent No.1. After allowing adducing of evidence,both oral and documentary, by both the parties,respondent No.1 arrived at the conclusion that theretrenchment of the workman was in violation of theprovisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.1 took note ofthe fact that the workman died during the pendency of the dispute before it and that, therefore, it was notpossible to order for reinstatement. It, however, directedpayment of salary at the last drawn pay of Rs.350/- permonth for one year. Being dissatisfied with the saidaward, the petitioners, who are the legal representativesof the deceased-workman, filed the present WritPetition.
It appears that respondent No.2 has not
questioned the award and allowed the same to becomefinal. At the hearing, there is no representation forrespondent No.2 though the name of the learnedcounsel is shown in the cause list.
Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for thepetitioners, strenuously contended that awarding ofcompensation for one year is inadequate. The learnedcounsel submitted that respondent No.1 having foundthat respondent No.2 violated the mandatory provisionof Section 25-F of the Act ought to have awardedreasonable compensation.
Having carefully considered the material on record, I find myself in agreement with the learnedcounsel for the petitioner. Under Section 25-F of the Act,a workman cannot be retrenched unless he is givenone month’s notice in writing or paid wages for theperiod of notice in lieu of giving such notice, and alsopaid the amount equivalent to 15 days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service. As rightlypointed out by the learned counsel, the amountspayable under the above two heads itself will come towages equivalent to 7 months. The workman admittedlyworked for nearly 12 years. Therefore, awarding of one-year wages is wholly inadequate to meet the ends ofjustice. In my considered view, respondent No.1 oughtto have been more considerate and liberal in remedyingthe injustice done to the workman and his family.Considering the fact that the workman has put in 12years of service before he was retrenched, I feel thatends of justice would be met if the petitioners are paidlast drawn wages equal to three years period instead ofone year as directed by respondent No.1.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to theextent indicated above by modifying the award passedby respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 shall deposit thewages for three years calculated at Rs.350/- per monthwithin eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order before respondent No.1. On such depositbeing made, the petitioners shall be permitted towithdraw the same unconditionally.
---------------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,
J
Date:30-12-2008MNR