Telangana High Court
WP/27513/2007 of Sri K. Rajeswara Rao, Vs The Honble Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 24 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27513 of 2007 Dated 24th December, 2007 Between Sri K.Rajeswara Rao …Petitioner and The Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum-Labour Court, at Hyderabad, rep. By its Presiding Officer, and, anr. …Respondents.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 27513 of 2007
Between
Dated 24[th] December, 2007
Sri K.Rajeswara Rao
…Petitioner
and
The Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum-LabourCourt, at Hyderabad, rep. By its Presiding Officer, and, anr.
…Respondents.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 27513 of 2007
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 questioning the Award dated 5-7-2002passed in LCID.No. 254 of 2001 by the learned Presiding Officer,Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, atHyderabad.
The petitioner, initially, was appointed as Badili on 23-6-1981 inSingareni Collieries Company Limited and subsequently, promoted asTrammer. While he was working as Trammer, he remained absent for252 days without leave or sufficient cause during the year 1999. Thepetitioner was charge sheeted and, after conducting enquiry andconsidering his explanation, he was dismissed from service for themisconduct of unauthorized absence.
The petitioner had challenged the said order of dismissal beforethe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, by filingpetition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inLCID.No.254 of 2001. The said Tribunal while upholding the validity ofthe domestic enquiry and invoking the powers under Section 11(A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, taking into account the pastrecord of the petitioner, ordered reinstatement as Trammer in the initialscale of Trammer. But, however, continuity of service was given onlyfor the purpose of terminal benefits. The petitioner has questioned theadverse part of the said Award in this Writ Petition.
Though the award was passed on 5-7-2002, but however, thisWrit Petition is filed only on 20-12-2007. There is no explanation at allin the affidavit filed in the support of the Writ Petition for the abnormaldelay and laches on the part of the petitioner. As much as the domesticenquiry was upheld by the Tribunal and in absence of any explanationfor the inordinate delay and laches in approaching this Court, I do notfind any ground to entertain this Writ Petition.
This Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No orderas to costs.
----------------------------------
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYDATE: 24-12-2007Msnr.