Telangana High Court
WP/9825/2019 of The Depot Manager, TSRTC Vs B.Venkata Ramana on 30 December 2020
THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 9825 OF 2019 Between: '1 . The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Mancherial. 2. The Dy. Chief Traffic lVlanager,
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No. 9825 OF 2019
Between:
'1 . The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Mancherial.
2. The Dy. Chief Traffic lVlanager, TSRTC, Adilabad.
3. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Adilabad
...PETITIONERS
AND
B. Venkata Ramana, E-3'10236, Conductor, S/o. Raianna, Age [48 ][years,]R/o. Peddapet Village, Dandepally lvlandal, District Adilabad 504206.
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of [lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, [the ][High ][Court ][may be pleased ][to]issue an appropriate writ order or direction especially [one in ][the ][nature ][of ][writ ][of]Certiorari calling for the records relating to [the ][impugned ][Award ][dt. ][18.07.2018]passed in l.D No. 3/2017 on file of the Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-Cum- LabourCourt-Cum-Vl Addl. Dist. and Sessions Court, [Godavarikhani (Respondent-1 ][herein)]and published on 01 .12.2018 in GO [Rt. No. 595, and quash ][the ][same as being illegal,]unjust, perverse and without [jurisdiction.]
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under section 151 cPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in ][the]affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may be ][pleased ][to ][stay ][the]execution of the Award dt. [18.07.20'18 ][passed ][in ][l.D ][No. ][312017 ][on ][file ][of ][the]chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-cuni- [Labour ][court-cum- ][Vl ][Addl. ][Dist. ][& ][Sessions]court, Godavarikhani [(Responden!1 ][herein) and published on ][01 ][.12.2018 in GO ][Rt.]No. 595, pending disposal of the [above ][writ ][petition.]
Counsel for the Petitioners: [SRI ][A. ][RAVI ][BABU' ][(SC ][FOR ][TSRTC)]
Counsel for the Respondent: [SRI ][A.K' JAYAPRAKASH ][RAO]The Court at the admission [stage ][made ][the ][following: ][ORDER]
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:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR [SHAVILI]
WRIT PETITION No.9825 of 20'19
This writ petilion is being disposed of ot the odmission sloge wilh the consenl oi both porlies.
This wril peliiion is filed seeking the following relief [:]
"...... to issue an appropriate writ, order or directionespeciatty one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calting forthe records retating to the impugned Award dt.18.07.2018passed in LD.No.3/2017 on fite of the Chairman, IndustriaITribunal-Cum- Labour Court-Cum-VI Additionat Dist andSessions Court, Godavarikhani [(Respondent-1 ]herein) andpubtished on 01 .12.2018 in G.O.Rt.No.595 and quash thesame as being ittegat, unjust, perverse and withoutjurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as thisHon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case..... ".
Heord Sri A.Rovi Bobu, leorned Stonding Counsel for thepetitioner Corporolion ond Sri A.K.Joyoprokosh Roo, leornedcounsel oppeoring for lhe respondent-workmon.
Leorned counsel oppeoring for the pelitioner hod contendedlhot lhe respondenl-workmon wos initiolly oppoinled os oConductor on doily woge bosis during Morch, 1990 ond lhe servicesof the workmon were regulorized os o Conductor with effecl from04.08. l 99 l . While the responden t wos dischorging his dulies, he hodremoined obsent unoulhorizedly from 09.09.1997 lo 10.09.1992.Thereofter, the disciplinory outhority hod inilioled disciplinoryproceedings ogoinsi the respondent-workmon ond ofterconducting o detoiled enquiry, the disciplinory oulhority wos
pleosed lo impose punishment of deferment of incremenl for operiod of one yeor, which shqll hove ils effeci on fulure incrementvide order doled 03.10.,l998. The disciplinory oulhorily imposed lhesoid punishmenl bosed on Enquiry Officer's repori, [wherein ][lhe]Enquiry Officer hod held thot the chorge hos [proved ][ond]thereofter, ofter neorly 12 [yeors, ]the respondenl-workmon [hod]soid punishmenl bosed on Enquiry Officer's repori, [wherein ][lhe]Enquiry Officer hod held thot the chorge hos [proved ][ond]thereofter, ofter neorly 12 [yeors, ]the respondenl-workmon [hod]prefened on oppeol to the oppellote outhority on 24.09.2010. Theoppellote oulhority hod rejecied ihe oppeol [preferred ][by ][the]respondent-workmon on 29.1 [I ].2013 on [lhe ][ground ][lhot ][the ][oppeol]oppellote oulhority hod rejecied ihe oppeol [preferred ][by ][the]respondent-workmon on 29.1 [I ].2013 on [lhe ][ground ][lhot ][the ][oppeol]preferred by the petitioner is time borred. Thereofter, [lhe]respondent hod unsuccessfully [preferred review, ][which ][wos]rejecled on 17.04.2014. Subsequently [in ihe ][yeor ][2017, ][the]respondenl-workmon hod [roised ]on [industriol ][dispute ][ond ][lhe]oppropriote Governmenl hod [refened ][the ][dispute ][to ][the ][Lobour]Courl under Seclion 10(l )(c) [of the ][lnduslriol ][Disputes ][Act. ][1947 ][ond]the soid reference wos numbered os [l.D.No.3 ][ol ][2017. ][The ][Lobour]Courl, without opprecioiing [lhe ][foct ][thot the ][respondentworkmon]hod opprooched the Lobour Court, [belotedly, ofter ][neorly ][20 ][yeors]ond withoul considering the [objections ][roised ][by the ][pelitioner-]hod [portly ]ollowed [the ][l.D. ][prefened ][by ][the]Corporotion, respondent-workmon [vide order ][doted ][18.07'2018' ][The ][operotive]portion of the soid order reods [qs ]follows [:-]respondent hod unsuccessfully [preferred review, ][which ][wos]rejecled on 17.04.2014. Subsequently [in ihe ][yeor ][2017, ][the]respondenl-workmon hod [roised ]on [industriol ][dispute ][ond ][lhe]oppropriote Governmenl hod [refened ][the ][dispute ][to ][the ][Lobour]Courl under Seclion 10(l )(c) [of the ][lnduslriol ][Disputes ][Act. ][1947 ][ond]the soid reference wos numbered os [l.D.No.3 ][ol ][2017. ][The ][Lobour]Courl, without opprecioiing [lhe ][foct ][thot the ][respondentworkmon]hod opprooched the Lobour Court, [belotedly, ofter ][neorly ][20 ][yeors]ond withoul considering the [objections ][roised ][by the ][pelitioner-]hod [portly ]ollowed [the ][l.D. ][prefened ][by ][the]Corporotion, respondent-workmon [vide order ][doted ][18.07'2018' ][The ][operotive]portion of the soid order reods [qs ]follows [:-]
"ln the resutt, the reference is [partty ][attowed and the]punishment imposed by respondent No.1 [vide ][Office ][Order]No.E'l /1/(7)/98-MNCL, dated [03.10.1998 ][under ][Ex.M-4 ][is]modified to that of ["Deferment ][of ][annual ][increment ][for ][a period]of one year without [cumutatrve ][effect ][j.e., ][whjch ][shalI ][not ][have]
its effect on the future [increments. ][The ][petitioner ][is ][entitted ][to]benefits [and arrears ][thereof...'. ".]att consequentiat
Leorned counsel oppeoring [for ][the ][Petilioner-Corporotion]hod contended thot let lhe [order ][of ][the ][Lobour ][Court ][be ][modified]only to lhe extent of without [monetory ][benefiis ][ond ][insofor ][os ][the]punishment is concerned, let the oword of the [Lobour ][Courl ][be]confirmed.
Leorned Counsel oppeoring for [the ][respondentworkmon]hod conlended thot the Lobour Court hod [righlly interfered wilh]lhe punishment ond [gronled ]monetory [benefits ][olso. ][The ][Lobour]Courl hos [given ]cogent [reosons ][while ollowing the I'D' preferred ][by]ihe respondent-workmon. Therefore, [ihere ore ][no ][merits ][in ][the ][writ]petilion ond the some is lioble to be dismissed.
This Court, hoving considered [the ][rivol ][submissions ][mode ][by]the poriies, is of the considered [view ][thot ][the ][Lobour Court ][ought ][1o]hove roised o seporole [lssue ]ln [respect ][of ][limilotion ][becouse]odmittedly the disciplinory outhorily hod [imposed ][punishmenl ][on]03.lO.l99B ond the Lobour Courl, [without ][froming ][specific]issue in respect of lolches, [hos ][ollowed ][the ][l.D. ][preferred ][by ][lhe]respondenl-workmon. Therefore, [the ends ][of ]iuslice [would be ][met ][if]the oword of the Lobour Court [is ][confirmed, ][bul, ][however, ][wilh]regord lo [gronting ]of consequentiol [benefits, ][the ][Lobour ][Courl]ought not to hove ordered ond [ihe ][Lobour ][Courl ][oughl ][to ][hove]rejected the cose of the respondent-workmon [with ][respect ][to]monetory benefits. However, [the ][respondent-workmon ][is ][enlitled]for notionol fixotion of [poy. ]The oword [possed by ][the ][Lobour Courl]
To,
in l.D.No.3 ol 2017 doled 18.07.2018 is confirmed, however, theporlion reloting to monetory benefits is deleted from the oword ofthe Lobour Courl With ['ihe ]obove observolions, the writ pelition is porilyollowed. No costs.
Pending miscelloneous [petitions, ]if ony, sholl siond closed.SD/.K.AMMAJIASSTSTANT RF_GTST9AR//TRUE COPY//,r l_-/SECTION OFFICER
1. One CC to Sri. A. Ravi [Babu, ][Standing ][Counsel ][for TSRTC. ][OPUC]2. One CC to Sri. A.K. Jayaprakash [Rao, ][Advocate ]IOPUC]3. Two C.D. CopiesPrk\ V- DATED:30/1212020
ORDERWP.No.9825 of [2019]
Partly Allowing the WP.without costs.
@Xr"
rlE [5I4]IeYI.r5(.)2 1 JAI{ [20tt]azn"d'n'