N.Srihari v. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly the writ appeals are dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: SMT.A.P.LAKSHMI, Addl. Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: G.P. for Industries and Comemrce. WRIT APPEAL NO : 1831 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22- 08-2002 in WP NO : 2418 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT N.Naga Raju, S/o.Appanna, Aged 41 years, working as Mazdoor Regional Coir Training and Development Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. AND
The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1832 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22- 08-2002 in WP NO : 2419 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K.Bhima Raju, S/o.Peda Munaiah, Aged 39 years, Working as Field Man Regional Coir Training and Development Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. AND
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State. ..... APPELLANT
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1833 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22- 08-2002 in WP NO : 2417 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Ramachandra Rao, S/o.V.Satyanarayana, Aged 42 years, working as Coir Training & Extension Instructor, Regional Coir Training and Development Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. AND
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) ..... APPELLANT .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1839 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/08/2002 in WP NO : 2416 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Syed Bab Sahed, S/o.Dowla, Aged 44 years, working as Coir Training & Extension Instructor Regional Coir Training & Development Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1847 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22- 08-2002 in WP NO : 2415 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G.Pandari Babu, S/o.VenkateswaraRao, Aged 45 years, Working as Coir Training & Development Centre, Regional Coir Training & Development ..... APPELLANT Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. AND
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1851 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22- 08-2002 in WP NO : 2420 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: B.Dharma Raju, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged 51 years, working as Field Man Regional Coir Training & Development Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. AND
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT
4. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1857 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22- 08-2002 in WP NO : 2423 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.Paideswara Rao, S/o.Purushotham, Aged 44 years, working as Field Man Regional Coir Training & Development Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE WRIT APPEAL NO : 1860 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22- 08-2002 in WP NO : 2421 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) ..... APPELLANT Between: K.Ramakrishna, S/o.Rama Murthy, Aged 43 years, working as Field Man Regional Coir Training & Development Centre, Coir Board, Swarajyanagar, Rajahmundry, R/o.Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. AND
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been impleaded as per Court Orders dated 12-06-2002) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Smt.A.P.Lakshmi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bikshapathy) These Writ Appeals are filed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2420, 2421, 2422 and 2423 of 2002, dated 22-08-2002, refusing to grant full back wages.
2. The learned Judge, having held that the termination was effected in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1947’), directed reinstatement with 50% back wages, leaving it open respondents to retrench the workman by following the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act, 1947 effectively. As far as the claim for balance 50% of back wages is concerned, the present Writ Appeals have been filed.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find that there is any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The relief, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is a discretionary relief and the learned Judge even though found the termination was illegal, only 50% back wages were granted and we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge.
Operative part
4. Accordingly the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. __________________ (G.BIKSHAPATHY,J) _________________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J) Dated: 01-12-2004 Kvr/Prv To
1. The Chairman, Coir Board, Kochi, Kerala State.
2. The Secretary, Coir Board, M.G.Road, Kochi, Kerala State.
3. The Regional Officer, Coir Board, VUDA complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Rural & Agro Industries, Union of India, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries Department, Hyderabad.
Two CCs to G.P. for Industries and Commerce, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).
Two CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the writ appeals are dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Jun 2002. The bench was G BIKSHAPATHY, B SESHASAYANA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.