Telangana High Court
WP/26073/1998 of The Managing Director/Vice-Chariman, Vs S. Ramakrishna Reddy (dismissed) on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26073 of 1998 Between: 1 The Managing Director/Vice-Chariman, A.P.S.I.D.C., HUDA-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 26073 of 1998
Between:
1 The Managing Director/Vice-Chariman, A.P.S.I.D.C., HUDA- Commercial Complex, Hyderabad. HUDA- Commercial Complex, Hyderabad.
2 The Executive Engineer A.P.S.I.D.C. Division, Ananthapur. Ananthapur.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 S. Ramakrishna Reddy (dismissed) Mallasigaiahgaripalli, Reddipalli Post, Ananthapur District. Mallasigaiahgaripalli, Reddipalli Post, Ananthapur District.
2 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners : SMT.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for Respondent No.1 : 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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash award,dated 30.12.1997 in I.D.No.245 of 1994 on the file of respondentNo.2.
Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for thepetitioners. No one appeared for respondent No.1. The writ petitionwas dismissed against respondent No.2.
Respondent No.1 joined the petitioners – Corporation as a daily wage worker in the year 1984. In the first instance, his serviceswere terminated in the year 1985. He filed I.D.No.118 of 1987 beforethe Labour Court. On respondent No.1 undertaking that he will notclaim back wages, the Corporation issued proceedings, dated22.06.1990 reinstating him with effect from 20.06.1990. Again theservices of respondent No.1 were terminated with effect from03.05.1994. He raised another industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.245 of1994 before respondent No.2. By the impugned award, the said I.D.was partly allowed by directing the reinstatement of respondent No.1,but without back wages.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the petitioners and perused the award.
The two grounds on which the order of retrenchment was setaside were that the petitioners failed to follow the provisions ofSection 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’)and also the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act in consideringrespondent No.1 for reemployment.
Though learned counsel for the petitioners made strenuousefforts to persuade me to set aside the award, I am of the view that thereasoning of the Labour Court, at least on violation of Section 25-F ofthe Act by the petitioners, is based on proper analysis of the evidenceadduced before it. While it is the case of respondent No.1 that neithera retrenchment notice, nor compensation in lieu thereof was paid asmandated under Section 25-F of the Act, the case of the petitioners isthat a cheque was prepared on 03.05.1994 and the same was sent torespondent No.1 by registered post with acknowledgement due andthat respondent No.1 refused to receive the same. Even acceptingthe said explanation, the Labour Court found that there is no materialto show, when the cheque was dispatched and whether as on03.05.1994 when the termination was brought into effect, thecompensation amount was offered. In my considered view, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioners thatretrenchment compensation in lieu of one month’s notice was offeredas on the date of termination, such a retrenchment falls foul ofmandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As the petitionersfailed to show that the compensation was offered on 03.05.1994, I donot find any illegality in the finding of the Labour Court that theretrenchment of respondent No.1 is in violation of the provisions ofSection 25-F of the Act. I further find that the Labour Courtconsidering the poor financial position of petitioners deniedrespondent No.1 back wages. This approach of Labour Court, in myopinion, is equitable, which balanced the interests of both the parties.
Conclusion
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition isdismissed.
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, JDated:26.12.2008GJ