Telangana High Court
WP/8504/2002 of The General Manager, Vs The Chairman, on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8504 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 27.12.2001, in I.D.No.38 of 2001 passed by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The I.D. was filed by respondent No.2 under Section 2- A
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.8504 of2002
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 challenging the award, dated27.12.2001, in I.D.No.38 of 2001 passed by the Chairman,Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The I.D.was filed by respondent No.2 under Section 2-A (2) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the order of dismissal,dated 01.07.1999, passed against him by the petitioner. Theprincipal controversy was as to the genuinity of the claim ofrespondent No.2 for being employed on account of his father beingmedically rendered unfit. The Labour Court passed an award,dated 27.12.2001, setting aside the order of dismissal and holdingthat the petitioner shall reinstate respondent No.2 and pay backwages. Several grounds are urged by the petitioner in itschallenge to the award.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, thelearned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learnedcounsel for respondent No.2.
It is not in dispute that identical issue was dealt with by thisCourt in W.P.No.816 of 2004. In its order, dated 21.10.2010, thisCourt dismissed the writ petition upholding the award, but directingthat respondent No.2 therein shall not be entitled to be paid anydifference of wages for the period during which the writ petitionwas pending. One difference is that while in the instant case, theLabour Court awarded back wages, in the award that was subjectmatter of W.P.No.816 of 2004, no back wages were awarded.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court feels that the direction as to the payment of back wagescannot be sustained and the relief in terms of W.P.No.816 of 2004deserves to be given in this writ petition also.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed upholding the award,dated 27.12.2001, passed in I.D.No.38 of 2001 in all respectsexcept to the extent it awarded back wages. It is directed that thepetitioner shall reinstate respondent No.2 into service within fourweeks from today. The petitioner shall not be under obligation topay difference of amount for the period during which the writpetition was pending. The pay of respondent No.2, however, shallbe fixed, by taking into account the length of service. There shallbe no order as to costs.
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:30.12.2010.
kdl