Telangana High Court
WA/2220/2004 of Md. Liyakath Ali, Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, on 22 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 2220 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO : 2220 of 2004
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated02/08/2004 in WP No.2205 of 1997 on the file of the High Court.)
Between:
Md.Liyakath Ali, S/o.Md.Osman Ali,
Aged 49 years, Occ: Conductor, E-100991, Present working at Narayankhed Depot, Medak district.
AND
..... APPELLANT
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.
1. The Depot Manager,
APSRTC, Zaheerabad Depot,
Medak District
2. The Labour Court-II,
Rep. by its Presiding Officer,
Hyderabad.
3. The Depot Manager,APSRTC,
Narayankhed Depot, Medak District.
4. The Regional Manaqer,
APSRTC, Medak Region at Sangareddy, Medak District.
Counsel for the Appellant: MR.Sadu Rajeshwar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: MR.V.T.M.Prasad, S.C. forA.P.S.R.T.C.
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Government Pleader for Labour.
The Court at the admission stage made the following :
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy)
The learned single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the matter andupon appreciation of the entire material available on record, came to the rightconclusion that interest of justice would be met by denying the full backwages in full,and accordingly held that the Labour Court did not commit any error in coming to theconclusion that the punishment of removal imposed by the respondent-Corporationis disproportionate to the proved charges. The learned single Judge held that theLabour Court rightly interfered with the order of the disciplinary authority in settingaside the order of removal. Since the appellant-workman did not render any servicefrom the date of removal till his reinstatement, the learned single Judge held that heis not entitled for backwages. The order under appeal does not suffer from anyfactual error or legal infirmities. In our considered opinion, the Labour Court as wellas the learned single Judge took a lenient view in directing the reinstatement of thepetitioner into service by setting aside the order of removal. The order does not callfor our interference.
The appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.
-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------- (M.NARAYANA REDDY, J)
22[ND] December, 2004
LUR/GRR
Copy to:
1. The Depot Manager,
APSRTC, Zaheerabad Depot,
Medak District
3. The Labour Court-II,
Rep. by its Presiding Officer,
Hyderabad.
4. The Depot Manager,APSRTC,
Narayankhed Depot, Medak District.
5. The Regional Manaqer,
APSRTC, Medak Region at Sangareddy, Medak District.
6. Two CD copies.