The High Court · 2025

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari- i. call for the records pertains to lD.No.26 of 1996 dated 4.1.2005 on the file of lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Godavarikhani as published in G.O.Rt.No.462 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.l) Department dated 21 .2.2005 and set aside the same ii. consequently allow lD.No.26 of 1996 on the file of lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Godavarikhani Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K. VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI U. SHANTHI BUSHAN RAO, SC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KAR'II tIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.21142 of 20O6 'lhe present Writ Pctition is filed seeking the foil relief ^\,ing "...to issue a Writ or order or .lireclton, cspcciall.r' one ir rt nitture of Wr-rt of Certiolari: call for thc iecords pertains to ID No.26 of 199r cil.4 1-2005 on the lile o[ Industrial Tribunal cum Lrr our Court, Goclcrvar-ikhirni as published rn GO Rt. No ,r 12, Labour Dmplol,mcnL Training & Faclories (Lab.l) Dcp:er t r .)rt (1t.21 2- 2005 and s, r ., sid. rl.( s.tmc ConscqucnLl], allol lD No.26 of 1996 on thc l,i:r ri lndustrial Tribrrnal curn Latrour Cor,rrt, Goclavarikhani. " 2l Heald Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned co.i rsel for the petiLioners, and Sri U.Shanthi Bushan Rao, lceu r ed Standing Counsel, appearing for the sole respondent 3) Learned counsel for the pelitioners has m:iir 1'contended that the Labour Court l-ras not decided the validi,r of domes Lic enquirl. as preliminary point, The Labour Courr 1as also not considered the conrention of the employee that < i brcak journey/ charlge ovcr dutics was not intir ncellation of i:rted to the employee. Learned counsel has furlher contended tll Lt the Labour Court failed to appreciate that as per the evider < l of one Sri G. Shanker, there rvas no cancellation of chang( over duties, horvever, as no conductor rvas available for 1330 lr, r.rrs trip, the I I i i ) PI(, wP-2t142 2006 ( deccased ernployee rvas conrpciled t() concluct the bus. But, due to personiri dilficultl,, the dcccased cnrpioyce ,clused to concluct the bus at 1330 hours on 28.lO.igSB, rvhich cannot bc treatecl as rniscor-rduct. Hence, the pctitioners cannot be penahzed for the same. It is furthcr contencjed tltaL durirr3 the departmcntal enquiry, the witnesses got cxaminecl by the Management behind the back of tlte deceased employec and he \i,as not permitted to cross examine the wiLnesses. Therefore, thc lcarned counsel playcd this Court Lo a[o,,v Lhe u.rit petitior;. 4l Per contra, the iearned Star-rcling Counsel has contended on 28.10. 1988 the petitioncr u,as supposed to conduct the bus also in thc return journey i.e. from CBS to Goclavarikhani scheduled at 1330 hours. But, he dicl not come to the bur; Lili 14 15 hours. As such, the Station Ma.ager., CBS, instl.ucted the Controller to issue the tickets. At that stagc, L1,re ernployee catne to the spot in drunken condition and he rvas not in a position to conduct the bus. As such, the departmental procceclings were initiated against the petitioner and after conclucting thc enquiry, as per law, the services of the petitioner rvere removed vide order dated 20.07.19A9 and the same was rightly confirmed by the Labour Court after considering the evidence, both oral and documenta{y, :1..?:sq!-<a4:5r' ',; J PI(, J wp 21 142 2006 I I 1 available on record. Therefore, the learned coriLr,cl orayed to dismiss the rvril nctition. 5) 'lhis Court has taken note o[ the submis: i ,:ts made by respec:ive counscl and perused the material on reco:( 6) Before thc Labour CourL, the respondent-Ci -poratlon got marked as manv as 2.1 exhibits i.e. Dxs.M. I to M.2,1 tlx. M-7 is the Medical Certilicate issue by Osmania General t,, s pit al, dated

28.10.1988 and Dx.N{-8 is the Certiiicate issued by '} e Sl of Police. Afzaigrrnj, H].derabad, dated 31.10.1988. Ivlainll r -'lr.'ing on the said trvo documcnts, the Labour Court has conc r ded that the emplot'ee u'as in. dmnken condition and farled to ertl c rd his dutie s. The Labour Court h:r.s given a categorical finding t,r Li ttrough the empJovee tried Lo project beforc it that he u,as asl r C tc', do extra dutl' by cor-rductrng the bus to Godavarikhani, he re-r scci the szrme and as such false charges were framed against hin,, but the same is or-r11- an afterthought to protect himself. The in 1 ugned Au.ard also rcveals th.rt in an earlier occasion also, the mployee rvas removed from service and later he rvas reinstated i Lto sen ice as per the Arvard passed in I.D. No.34O/ 1986. Inspire of the same, the emplo1,ee has not changed his behaviour and ontinued the habit of consuming alcohol r.r,hile or-r duty and t]rc same caused damage to the image of the Corporation. The conr :ntions urged -4 PI(, wp 21142 2CO6 bcfore this Court rvere alreacly urgccl before thc Labour Cottrt and considcring thc submissions as u,ell as thc matcrial on rccord, t.he Labourr Court ltas righ[11, perssccl the irnpugned Arvard. 7l In vier.r, of thc above fir.rclrngs .f Lhc LaL:our Court, this Court does not h^d any mc.r in r"hc *,rit pe titior-r a.d thc same is liabk: to bc dismissed. 8) Accordingly, thc Writ pctition is clismisscd Misccllancous pcLitions per-rciirrg, if arn1,, shall stand closed No costs To, Sd/-M.NAGAMANI I '/ TSTANT *ao'ato*-' ASS /ITRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 3H 3313 35' ,f .',f,VP-i"S-tEB?X'#b:"ss E'.U3} Two CD Copies PMK B f\4 Yx HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 i i 1 I l I I I I I I I i I l : ORDER WP.No.21142 of 2006 I \:\-l t :r, m5 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITI OUT COSTS () .-aeA coY' \rk -.-^iid)