Telangana High Court
WP/15361/1999 of The General Manager (P), Vs The Presiding Officer, on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15361 of 1999 Between: The General Manager (P), M/s. Singareni Collieries
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 15361 of 1999
Between: The General Manager (P), M/s. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District.
.....
PETITIONER
AND
1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Chandra Vihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.
2 The Branch Secretary, Godavari Loya Boggu Gani KarmikaSangham (IFTU), Yellandu, Khammam District, PIN 507 123.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.V.Uma Devi Counsel for the Respondents : None.
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:
Heard Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
No one entered appearance for respondent No.2.
The petitioner, who represents the management of M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, KhammamDistrict, felt aggrieved by the award passed by respondent No.1, whereby it purported to allow certain claims made on behalf of fourtrainees of the petitioner-company through the Secretary ofrespondent No.2-Union. The said four individuals were provisionallyselected for different posts in the petitioner-company and weredirected to report duty for by the General Manager (Personnel) byorder, dated 21.03.1990. They underwent training from April 1990 toJuly 1990 at ITC Manuguru and from July 1990 to September 1990 atYellandu. From October 1990 to December 1990 and from January1991 to March 1991, they received training at Manuguru andYellandu, respectively. Subsequently, they were posted at Yellanduas ‘D’ Grade E.P. Fitters by the office order dt.15.04.1991 of thepetitioner, after completion of their training period. Respondent No.2made claims for House Rent Allowance (HRA), Travelling Allowance(TA), Dearness Allowance (DA) and Settling Allowance (SA) onbehalf of these four workmen during the above-mentioned trainingperiod. These claims were resisted by the petitioner-company. However, by the impugned award, some of the claims werepurportedly allowed by respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fourworkmen are not entitled to HRA, TA, and SA. A perusal of theaward shows that respondent No.1 relied on Clause 1.3 of theTravelling Allowance Rules and held that the said rule permitspayment of TA to trainees also, besides regular employees. However, having given the said finding, respondent No.1 hasconfined his award only to DA.
In para 11 of the award, respondent No.1 stated as under:
“In the result, an Award is passed holding that thepetitioner-workmen are entitled to Dearness Allowanceduring the on job training period as per Rules. They are notentitled to Settling Allowance.”
From the above reproduced portion of the award, it is clear that though claims were made in respect of HRA, TA and SA, the awardwas passed only in respect of DA. Learned counsel has notseriously disputed the entitlement of the four workmen for DA inaccordance with the Rules.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason tointerfere with the award passed by respondent No.1.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition isaccordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated27.12.1999, is vacated and WPMP.No.18909 of 1999 is dismissed.
Dated:30.12.2008GJ
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J