Telangana High Court
WP/2087/2009 of The Deputy Executive Engineer, Vs M. Obula Reddy, on 30 December 2014
CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.2087 OF 2009 O R D E R: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short “ the Corporation”), is aggrieved by the Award dated 26.06.2007 in I.D.No.61 of 2006 passed by the Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer, Industrial
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMWRIT PETITION No.2087 OF 2009
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.
O R D E R:
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (inshort “the Corporation”), is aggrieved by the Award dated26.06.2007 in I.D.No.61 of 2006 passed by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur(in short ‘the Tribunal’), the present Writ Petition has been filed.
2) Heard Sri A. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for theCorporation, and Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the 1[st]respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Labour, for the2[nd] respondent.
3) Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted thatthe 1[st] respondent examined himself as W1 and got markedExs.W1 to W12 and on behalf of the Corporation, Deputy ExecutiveEngineer was examined as MW1, wherein MW1 categoricallydeposed that the 1[st] respondent was never an employee engagedby the Corporation and he might have been engaged through acontractor in the Civil Engineering works and the Identity Cardsfiled by the respondents are only temporary Identity Cards issuedfor allowing the 1[st] respondent to enter the premises for executingthe contract works and the bus passes issued, if any, which werealso temporary and are issued only to facilitate the work during theperformance of contract and the 1[st] respondent was never issuedwith any appointment letter and he ceased to be a contractemployee of the contractor after the contracts were executed andhe was only continuing with the contractor pursuant to the interim directions of the Hon’ble High Court and he should have beendisengaged after the dismissal of the Writ Petition. The learnedStanding Counsel contended that the Tribunal without consideringthe evidence of MW1 in a correct perspective directed for hisreinstatement into service as Technical Maistry, Civil Engineeringor any other equivalent job with continuity of service and attendantbenefits and therefore prayed for setting aside of the impugnedorder.
4) A perusal of the Award discloses that the Tribunal hasrecorded a finding that the 1[st] respondent had worked with theCorporation during the period from 20.06.1996 to 20.10.2005 and hehad also filed a Writ Petition No.7005 of 1999 with a prayer toregularise his services as Man Mazdoor and Technical Maistreefrom the date of his initial appointments by applying time scale, andfurther perusal of the record discloses that the 1[st] respondent alsofiled W.P.No.20986 of 2005 questioning the threats for histermination without following the due procedure under Section 25 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”).
5) The 1[st] respondent raised an industrial dispute approachingthe Tribunal by filing a claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of theAct. The Tribunal after considering the evidence placed before itcategorically found that the 1[st] respondent had worked with theCorporation between 20.06.1996 and 20.10.2005. In coming to thesaid conclusion the Tribunal had also recorded a finding that theCorporation failed to produce any acceptable evidence before it tosupport the contention that the 1[st] respondent was engaged by theContractor and not by the Corporation. The fact that the 1[st]respondent was paid by the Corporation was not denied and in the absence of any material to support the contention of theCorporation that the 1[st] respondent workman was engaged by theContractor, was not believed. Therefore, there is no materialbefore this Court to come to a contra conclusion. It is alsoadmitted by the Corporation that the 1[st] respondent came to bereinstated on 29.10.2007 and he has been working as a Conductorever since then. Further, the Tribunal did not grant any backwagesand there is no claim for backwages also. In those circumstances,there is no illegality in the orders of the Tribunal which requireinterference by this Court.
6) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall beno order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallalso stand dismissed.
Dated:30.12.2014.Ssv
Conclusion
-----------------------------------CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J