WA/2231/2004 of The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Vs K.Shanmugham, on 31 December 2004

1. K. Shanmugham, S/o. Balaiah,about major, R/o.2-2-1137/8/1,New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

2. The Labour Court-I, II Floor, Chandravihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.GHANTA RAMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR B.G.RAVINDER REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:-(PER GB,J.)

The Writ Appeal is filed against the order, dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learnedsingle judge in W.P.No.26679 of 1997.

2. The respondent No.1 was engaged as NMR work Inspector for construction ofFlyover. However, on completion of the work, the service of the respondent No.1was terminated without following the provisions contained under Section 25-F of theIndustrial Disputes Act. Therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by therespondent No.1-workman before the Tribunal in I.D.No.349 of 1991. The learnedTribunal however declined to grant any relief to the petitioner and passed award,dated 01.11.1996 against the workman. Aggrieved by the said award, the workmancarried the matter in W.P.No.26679 of 1997 before this Court.

3. The learned Single Judge however allowed the Writ Petition holding that thedisengagement of the respondent was in violation of Section 25-F of the IndustrialDisputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). Taking into consideration this aspect, the petitionerwas directed to be reinstated into service with full back wages by an order, dated3.9.2003, against which the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the MunicipalCorporation.

4. Learned counsel for the Corporation now submits that the respondent-employeewas engaged on the Flyover and as soon as the flyover is completed he has no rightto continue, but however, on account of the non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, the learned Single Judge found fault with the Corporation and granted the reliefprayed by the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue ofthe order of the learned Single Judge the petitioner has already been reinstated intoservice and he is working.

5. The learned counsel for respondent-employee further submits that the order of thelearned Single Judge is quite legal and valid and it needs no interference moreespecially when there is violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the termination was affected in violation of Section 25-F ofthe Act and it is also admitted that the petitioner has been reinstated into service, butnow the question that calls for consideration is whether award of full back wages isjustified. It is to be noticed that the petitioner was disengaged consequent on thecompletion of the flyover, but however the petitioner remained unemployed for theperiod from the date of disengagement till reinstatement. Taking into considerationrelevant circumstances as also the fact that the petitioner has also been reinstatedand is being paid regular scales of NMR on par with the juniors, we find thatawarding of full back wages is not justified and accordingly, we reduce the backwages to 50% instead of full back wages awarded by the learned single Judge.

8. With this modification, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The back wages as awardedabove shall be paid to the workman concerned within a period of four weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

__________________

G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

______________________

B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date: 31.12.2004

ES

To

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

2. The Labour Court-I, II Floor, Chandravihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

3. 2 CCs to the G.P. for Services I, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

4. 2 CD copies.