The D@ot Manager v. 1. V.S.Narayana

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fibd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of execution of the award dl.Ol44-203 rnade in l.D.No.4gl2000, Labour court-ll, Hyderabad pending disposal of the abo'ar writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.HARINATH, ADVOC,\TE FOR SRI R.ANURAG Counsel for the Respondent No.{ : SRI S.AK.ilyNUDt)tN Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER THE TION'BLE SRI .,USTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.16a8 of2OO4 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is fiIed seeking the following relief "...to issue an appropriate writ, order, orders or direction, especially in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt.07-O4-03, made in I.D.48/2OOO LC/II Hyderabad, published on 23-6-03, setting aside the order of removal dt' 23-4-OO, and directing reinstatement of Ist Respondent into service with continuity of service, fult back wages and attendant benefits, and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction, and invalid, and pass such other and further orders to meet the ends ofjustice ' 2l Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner- Corporation, Sri S.A.K.Mynuddin, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.2. I I I i ) 3) As can be seen from the material on record, vide Award dated 17.O4.2O03, the Labour Court has allowed I.D.Nos'48, 5O, 56, 12O, l2l, 123 of 20OO and I.D.No. 11 of 2O01 and directed the Corporation to reinstate ttre petitioners therein into service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits' Questioning the said award dated 17.O4.2OO3, in respect of I D' No.56 of 2OOO, the Corporation has filed W.P.No.2344 of 2OO4 and in respect of I.D. No. 121 of 2OOO, W.P.No.3129 of 2OO4 was filed' The learned Single Judge of this Court has adjudicated the said 1 PK, J wp 1688 2004 writ petitions on merits and dismissed the same vjde orders dated 17.12.2OL8 arrd 24.12.201g respectively. Tfrus, tht ljs has already attained finality. 4l In tha1. view of the matter and following thr: decision of the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 12.12.2o18 .nd 24.72.2org in W.P. Nos 2344 of 2OO4 and 3129 of 2OO4 r.t,spectively, the present Writ Petition is also dismissed. Miscellirneous petitions pending, if any, shal stand closed No costs. //TRUE COPY// . NAGAMANI REGISTRAR ,^ , SD/.M tuF "rl-' \ stcrroN oFFtcER Hyderabad. (OUT)

1. Two CC's to G.P FOR LABOUR, High Court for the St*e Lrf Telangana at 2. One CC to SR, R.ANURAG, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt S.A.K.MYNUDD|N, Advbcare 1beUC1 4. Two CD Copies ((Along with the C,tpy of Order dated 17.12.2018 and 24.12..,t018 tn W.P.No.2344 and 3129 of 20O4) To I, SA LS i HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 ORDER WP.No.1688 of 2004 /' ;, i:l\-

1. " J^\ . .; \- zom ;)) t- i/ .i.,, -. * .-/ .-;/- 1E ,iI 'ri: '-.- DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.2344 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:' "For the reasons stated in the accompanytng affidavit that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award dated l'l-04-2003 made in I.D.No.56/2000, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, published on 23-06-2003, setting aside the order of removal dated 24-03-2000 and directing reinstatement of the I't respondent into service with continuity of service, full back-wages and attendant benefits and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid" and pass such other and further orders to meet the ends ofjustice".

2. Heard the leamed Standing Counsel for petitioner-Corporation and the leamed Counsel for the l" respondent-workman.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner-Corporation that the 1s respondent-workman was initially appointed as an Apprentice Conductor on 7-6-1971 with effect fuom22-5-1911and he was removed from service after conducting enquiry on certain allegations, vide proceedings dated 24-03-2000 and challenging the same, the l't respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.56l2000 on the file of the 2'd respondent - Labour Court-II, Hyderabad under Section 2-A(2) of the lndustrial Disputes Act, and the Labour Court without properly appreciating any of the contentions raised by the corporation, passed an award dated 17-4-2003 setting aside the order of removal and directing the corporation to reinstate the I'r respondent into service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. 2 Aggneved tht:reby, the present writ petition is filed lr', thc pctitioner- Corporation.

4. Leamed Counsel for the l't respondent has contendr:rl that the I abour Court has riglrtly passed the award in favour of the l" respondent and, therefore, no interference is called for.

5. This Corrrt. having considered the submissions ma 1,.: by the learned Counsel for th,: parties, is of the considered view that the Labour Court has rightly passed ,he award in favour ofthe 1"'respondent. Furrher. no iltegality or irregularity is pointed out by the leamed Standing i.lounsel for the pctilioner-Cort oration in the award passed by the Labour (1,,urt. Unless and until any iltegality or irregularity is pointed out by the )r:amcd Standing Counsel lor the petitioner-Corporation in the award pass,]j b]. the Labour Court. this Court cannot interfere with the findings of t r,. Labour Court. Thcre are no nrerits in the writ petition and the writ petitic,n is liable to be disrnissed.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, ifany, pending in the writ petition :hall stand closed. No order as to rosts. [ 7'h December. 201 8 GS ABHINAND KUNIAR SHAVILI, J HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.3129 of 2fi)4 ORDER This writ petition is frled seeking to issue a writ of Cettiorari calling for the record relating to and connected with I.D.No.l21 of 2000 on the file of the 2"d respondent-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, and quash the Award dated 17 .04.2003 passed therein holding it as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing fot the petitioner-Corporation, and learned Govemment Pleader for Labour appearing for the 2"d tespondent. It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that the 1o respondent-workrnan was appointed as Apprcntice Driver. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Depot Clerlg and thereafter ptomoted as TI.III/DC and his probation was declared on 25.03.1998. While so, on 03-05-1999, a charge sheet was issued to him on the premise of misappropriation of amounts. His conduct was construed as misconduct and after initiating disciplinary proceedings and after conducting regulat enquiry and for the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of removal on the 1"' respondent-workrnan oide order dated 2.03.2000. Thereafter, th€ l"t respondent-workrnan filed I.D.No.121 of 2 2000 bcrore the 2.d respondent- Labour Court-II, I{yderabad, under S,:ction 2-A (2) of the Industdal Disputes i1ct, 19117 (for short t he Act'). The Labour Court, witho,rr properly appreciating any ofthe contentions raised by the O,rrporation, passed the Award dated 77.04.2003 directing the Corporation to reinstatc the 1". respondent-wodirnan into servir.e with full back w:rges, continuity of service and attendall benefits. Aggrievcd thcreby, rhe present writ petition is filed. Mrilc admitting the writ petirion, on 29.01.2004, this Court grantcd interim stay subiect to condit lln of the petition( r dcposiring half of the amount awar(l.rd l)y rhe Labour Oourt. Norv, the issue remains to be considered n this rvrit petition is with regard to payment of balance b rrlf of the amount :twardcd by the Labour Court. I-ezrrncd Goveinment Pleader appearing fr:,i the 2"d respondcnt conrends rhat the Labout Court has rightly passed the Award in favour of the 1* respondent and, thcrcforc, no interfererrce is called for. This Court, having considered the submissionrs made by the leam,:d counsel for the parties, is of the vien, tlrat in the Award, thc Labour Court has specifically obsen,r <l rhat rhe findings of the enquiry o{Ecer against all the pctitioncrs 3 therein are pcrvenie and in fact the rtal higher ofEcials, who mis-conducted themselves in dercliction of their duties, wete left without any actionr and directed the Cotporation to reinstate the 1"' respondent-workrnan into service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. When once the Labout Coun had exercised the power under Section 11-A of the Act, unless and until any illegaliry or irregularity is pointed out by the p€titioner-Corporation in the Award passed by the Labour Court, this Court cannot interfere with the same. There ate no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disrnissed. No costs- Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pcnding in the writ petition shall stand closed. 24!h Deccnber, 2018 JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVTLI