tvl. Narsing Rao v. 1. The Hon'ble Central Government lndustrial Tribunal

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in one in the nalure of writ of certlorari calling for the records in lD no 98 of 2015 as dismissed for default as illegal, arbitrary and unjust on the file of the Hon'ble 1st Respondent and consequently set aside the impugned award of the Hon'ble 1st Respondent in l.D No. 98 of 2015 and remand the LD No.98 of 2015 to Hon',ble 1st Respondent for fresh adludication of disputes and issuing notice to the parties and to pass an award on merits. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NARESH KUMAR GORIGE Counsel for the Respondents : SMT L.PRANATHI REDDY, DEPUTY SOLiCITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Coutt made the following ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI Nlrl\lDA WRIT PETITION No.4152 OF 2024 ORDER Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned Senicr Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner' ,lnd Smt. L Pranathi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of the resp)ndent Nos.l and 2. 2, The oetitioner approached the Court seelji4 o Draver as "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction j,lrticuiarly in one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for. l.e records in ID Nl.9B of 2015 as dismissed for default ,rs illegal, arbitrary and unjust on thc filc of thc Hon'ble 1- :'.. spondent and consequently set aside the impugned award oi rhe Hon'ble 1't Resprrndent in I.D No. 98 of 2015 and rema rrl the I.D No.98 of 2015 to Hon'ble 1'r Respondent for tresh .ro iudication of disputes and issuing notice to the parties ano '(. pass an award on merits and pass..."

3. The c se of the averments rnade in the affidavit filed bv the etitioner in brief as per the titioner in support of the present wrat petition is as under: -t l SN,J W.P.No 4152 2024 The petitioner was appointed in the 2t1d respondent organization in the year 19BB for sweeping and cleaning. The petitioner along with others on an earlier occasion filed W.P. No. 29210 of 1998 before this Court for absorbing them as regular employees and to pay other benefits on par with them and during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was terminated from the services in the month of October, 1998. Further the case of the petitioner is that the W.P. No. 2921 of 1998 was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2000 however, the above said order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.03.2001 passed in W.A. No. 1602 of 1999. The petitioner and others filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13451 of 2001 and the same was withdrawn with a liberty to raise Industrial Dispute on 09.11.2011. The respondent used to take signatures of the petitioner for every month on the wage register and paid the salary in cash to the petitioner. The petitioner worked for more than eleven (11) years continuously without any break in service and the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner orally on 23.10.1998 without giving any notice. The petitioner approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad against the said termination order and the Tribunal passed award vide I.D. No. 9B/20t5, dated 09.ll.2Ol7. J SN.J No -11i2 2024 Aggrieved b), the same, the petitioner approache(l he Court by filing the pre;ent writ petition

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The award impuqned dated 09.11,2017 passed in ID No.98 of 2015 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court at l-IYderabad is extracted hereunder: AWARD The Go'rerrment of India, Ministry of Labour by ii rrrd<:r No. L- 42007/2L2/2C 15-IR(DU) dated 07.12.2O15 referre rl he following dispute betw€en the management of Nuclear Fuel Ci , r-rlex and their workman undr:r section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 fo ,idjudrcation to this Tribunal between the management of Nuclear Fu I Complex and their workmar. The reference is, THE SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the management of l.luclear Fuel Comple:<, Hyderabad by terminating the services : I i he workman Sh. M. Na.singh Rao, S/o late M, Pochaiah, is i r.r 31, arbitrary and violation oF the Sectron 25F of ID Act, 1947) 'yes, to what relief th: r,r,orkman is entitled to?" The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. i\l .. 9B/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim sta ,: nent by the petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf r '' the workman. I '+ SN,.I \\'.1'No 4152 2024 Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the petitloner is closed as against the present Respondent and'No Dispute' award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit" DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION:

5. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalF of the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the Award dated 09.11.2017 passed in Industrial Dispute No.9B of 2015 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad is admittedly as borne on record not an Award passed deciding the subject dispute on merits but an order passed observing as under: "Perha Dst he Detition er has settled the disoute with the resoondent and there is no claim to raise Hence, there ts no need to lin oer the case to anv other date. In the clrcum stances stated above, the case of the oetitio ner Is closed as aqainst the Dresent res pondent and 'No dispute' award is oassed". Hence the impugned Award is not in the interest of justice, since it involves rights between th' parties and therefore, a - ::::a:: -1'--'.-:i.i- 3' . "r'i:/' 5 SN,J t.r |.No 4152 2024 reasonable oDportunity should be provided to the pr:titionei- herein and the subject issue in ID No.9B of 2015 in all fai:i-ress needs to be decided and adjudicated on merits.

6. Smt. Pranathi Reddy, learned counsel appeari-E on behalf oF the respondents submits that there are no bona ftaes on the part of the petitic)ner, since the petitioner did not take ,: ny steps for adducing evilence in the subject case and the n';rtter had been pending for several years without progress and adjLr,:lcation of the subject dispute Hqurever- admits fairlv that: the Award impuqned d ated 09.11.2017 passed in ID No.9t8 of 2015 on h f Central Government Industrial l'ribunal-cum- Labour Court at Hvderabad is not an order Das ed on merits h r t re contends that aDoroDriate ord ers could be passed in the interest of iustice.

7. Takinq into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstarn,ces of the ca se, (b) The submissions made by the learrred counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Starrding Counsel for CentraI Government, appearing on br:half of the respondent Nos,1 and 2, 6 .:.' SN,J WPNo.1 I52 2024 (c) The Award impugned dated 09.11.2017 passed in ID No.98 of 2015 on the file of the central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above), (d) The fact as borne on record that the subiect reference whether the action of the Management of Nuclear Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of Sri M.Narsingh Rao, S/o Late M.Pochaiah had been in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to the relief the workman is entitled to having remained unanswered as is evident on perusal of the award dated O9.LL.}OL7 passed in ID No.98 of 2015 on the file of the central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad. This Court in view of the fact as borne on record that the subiect issue ID No.98 of 2015 being pending on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad since 2O15, opines that the matter has to be remitted back to the respondent No.1 herein in the interest of justice for adjudication of Industrial Dispute No.98 of 2O15 on merits. , I I I f ,i*ga:tr-".:1?{ . 'r.- -;:r , 7 SN..I \, .l,.No :1151 2024 The writ petition is allowed, the impugnod Award in I.D. No.98 of 2015 dated 9.11.2Ot7 on ttre file of 1't respondent is set asade and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is directed to adjudicate an d decide the reference i.e. "Whethr:r thc action of the management ol. ,.luclcar Fuel Complex, llyderabad by terminating the services c. lhe workman Sh. M. Na|singh Rao, S/o late 14, pochaiah, is il r:r al, arbitrary and vrolatior.r of the Section 25F of ID Act, lg47? i. yes, to what relref th,: workman is enti ed to?', as forwarded by the Government of India/ plinistry of Labour by its order dated O7.L2.2OLS under S;ection 10 (1)(D) of Industrial Disputes Act, Lg4Z and pass appropriate reasoned orders on merits, in aci:ordance to law as per due procedure by providing a reasonable opportunity of personal hearang to both the pet itioner an d also to the respondents herein, within a perio<l of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy cf the order. There shall be no order as to costs. lvliscellaneous applications, if. .any, p_etrdir19 shall stand closed ,TRUE COPYII SD/-G. JYOTHI TANT REGISTRAR & srdi 'N\ ;O: n Labour Court ON OFFICE R epartm€ ri of Atornic EnergY, To

1. The Hon'ble Central Governrnent industrial Tribun Nampally NL.ar [/ozamJahi IVlarket, Hyderabad 2. The Chiel. Executrve, Nuclear Fuel Complex, D Hyderabad-62 ..!--! : *- .---ASEFT*..Eqa :t ":' - -r'-, .i.:-, : t t 3 One CC to SRI NARESH KU[\,1AR GORIGE, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SIVT L.PRANATHI REDDY, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies SA GJP W C.C. TODA\' iI ( Jr!. ..). i :i.,,', i, fitT ?tl5 , ..1) ,': :i t.. ;r l I I HIGH COURT \ DATED:1010912025 ORDER WP.No.4152 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. -,Xn& 4}q \t--<^o