The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 06-09-20'1 1 in W.P. No. 18630 of 2010, pending disposal of the writ appeal. + l- I I I I I I I.A.N O:1 OF 2012 WAMP .N O:2725 oF 2012 petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mav be pleased to vacate the interim orders of suspension dated 3.'1 1.2011 in w.A.M.p.No.2038 0f 2011 lN WA No.8BB of 2011. Counsel for Appellants : SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI V.HARI HARAN Counsel for Respondent No.2 : _ W.A. NO:522O F 2012 writ Appear under crause^15^of the Letters patent against the order dated 06-0g_ 2011 in W. p. No 1 8630 or zo ro. on i"ne-r",," "i Between: ,[J fiiJn ""rn B. Satyanarayana, S/o. B terozguda, Bowenpatry, Hrf,?:E:T3?boE51!1orov"" No.1-12t6, Phootbash cotony, AND .....APPELLANT/PETITIoNER '1. Central Government lg,s:tr?';#:':fl ffi 51fl I[i:l3l';'#"8?"""',1,t?,Y*;*ii;B[[83'f Hf ,''n

2. Hindustan petrole Di,ect;;,p;tro;:ii3;J3::xli!.i,*i,i"j"?.1:.0:[,1ffi1?_"130%?tn,,n

3. The Director. Mark 8, 5 *i; V;ii;'b; ils'iil!.! :t f,it";'f Natarajan ariroins,sfiFSl:3,i""Xr,:to Disciplinary Auttroritv,, Tatamuttu ,;491'.,v,, Hpc L, H usd usta n B hava n,

4. The General Mana

5. The Senior lnstallar s;il;";b;;.i#*?,1#il11:liJfl %ii?l,ss;".tlH%lk,lll.,, .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel forAppeilants : SRI V.HARI HARAN Counsel for Respondent No.1 : _ Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI G.V.S.GANESH The Court made the foilowing COMMON JUDGMENT I I I I /i /, THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL Nos. 888 0F 2011 AND 5220F 2012 COMMON IUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Since the issue involved in both these Writ Appeals is one and the same, both these Writ Appeals are being heard togcther and clisposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Aggrievecl by the order, dated 06.09.2011, passeci l11 W.P.No.-18630 of 2010 by a learned Single |udge of this Court, W.A.No.888 of 2011, is filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 and W.A.No.522 of 2012 is filed by the Petitioner in the subject Writ Petition.

3. Hearcl Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.A.No.888 of 2011 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W'A'No'522 of 20L2 and sri v. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.A.No.522 of 2072ancl respondent No.1 in W'A'No'888 of 2011' 4 For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.A'No'888 of 20'l-l are hereunder cliscussed. 2 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.88il ot 20 I1 & batch ':l:

5. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that respondent No.l-workman was employed as a r3eneral Workman with the appellant-Corporation on 24.02.7988. While he was discharging iris clutics, cluring ApfiL,2004, it has come to the notice of the appetlant-Corporation that respondent No.1 was involved in serious financia I irregularities. The disciplinary authority, construing tht: same as misconduct, initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.1 by issuing Charge Memo, dated 23.04.2004. Rcspondcnt No.1 has subm,ittecl explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Not satisfiecl with the explanation submittcd by respondent No.1, the dtsciplinary authority has concluctecl ;r detailec{ er.rquiry. The Encluiry Officer submitted Enquirv Report holding the charger; as proved oide Enquiry Report, clated 14.05.2005. The Enquirv Report furnished to responclent No.1 and respondent N,c.1 subrnitted his objections to the Enquiry Report. For the proven rnisconrJuct in the enquiry, thc dist:iplinary authority has imposed the punishment of discharge from service on respondent No.1 alde orcler, dated

04.77.2005 l AKS,J & I-NA..' W.A No.886 of 201 I & batch 6 Aggrieved by the order, dated 04.17.2005, respondent No'1 approachecl the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), by filing L.C.I.D.No.71 of 2006, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,7947 (for short, 'the Act'). The Tribunal, oide Awatd, dated 18.03.2010, was pleased to dismiss the said L.C.I'D Aggrieved by the same, resPondent No.1 approached this Court by filing the subject Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge of this Court, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant-Corporation, aide impugned order, dated 06.09.2011, was pleased to allow the Writ Petition in favour of respondent No.1 by setting aside the order, dated 04.11.2005, and directed the appellant-Corporation to issue second show-cause notice to respondent No.1 inclicating the punishment, give an opportunity to respondent No.1 and pass approPriate orders thereafter' 7 Learnecl counsel for the appellants had further contended that after 42"d amendment to the Constitution of India, there is no concept of giving seconcl show-cause notice indicating the 4 AITS,J & LNA.J W.A.No 818 of 201 I & barch proposed punishment. This fact was not properly appreciatcd by the learneci Single Judge ancl the learnecl Single Judge has mechanically allowed trre s,bject writ petition in favour of respondent No.1. Learned counsel further contendccl lhat during pendency of the present Writ Appeal, respondent No.1 has attained the age of superannuation. Since respondent Nc,.l was ,,iischarged from service, hc is errtitred to ail terminal benefits, but respondent No.1 refused to receive the terminal benefits. The appellant_ Corporation is readv to settle the terminar benefits with respo.dent No.1, which works our to approximately Rs.20,59,iJ00/_

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for resp,oyldsnt No.1 had contended that no reasolls were assignecl bv the appellant_ Corporation while discharging responclent No.1 from service. The appellants have irnposecl major penalty of discharge from service, which will have severe consequences. Therefore, tJre learned Single /udge has rightly allowed the subject writ petition i^ Iavour of respondent No.1. But, the learned Singte Judge cleLried bar:k_wages to respondent No. l. Therefore, responclent No-] ecl W.,,\.No.522 t I 5 AI{S,J & I-NA,J W.A.No tt88 ol 20l t & batch of 20'12. Now, that respondent No.1 has attained the age of superannuation, some reasonable compensation be awarded in Iieu of reinstatement, as admittedly, respondent No.1 cannot be reinstatecl into service, at this point of time. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal to that effect

9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly ailowed the subject Writ Petition in favour of respondent No.1. However, this Court cannot give a direction to the appellants to reinstate respondent No.1 into service, since respondent No.1 has already attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, ends o[ justice would be met' if the appellants are directed to pay relrenchment compensation to respon<lent No.1, as per Section 25(F) of the Act' in lieu of reinstatement into service, in addition to terminal benefits' which are payable by the appellants to respondent No'1' The appellants are also directed to settle the terminal benefits of respondent No.1 along with accumulated interest. 6 AI{S,J & LNA,J W A.No rJ88 of 20 I I & barch II

10. With the above observations/directio;ns, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no orderr as to (.osts. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, per.rcling in these Writ Appeals shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.T. KRISHNA KUMAR GISTRAR D SE OFFICER B, Surji Vallabh Das Marg, Mumbai - 400 001. Petroleum House, Zameshedji Tata Road, Mumbai _ 4OO O2O.

1. The Presiding officer, central Government lndustrial -l-ribunal cum Labour Court, Govt. of lndia, Ministry of Labour, M-2 Block, [Vianoranjan Complei, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 2. The chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan petroreum corporation Ltd., 3. The Director, [Vrarketing and Appeilate Authority, Hpct-, Husdustan Bhavan, 4. The General Manager, South Zone and Disciplinary Authority, Talamuttu 5. The Senior lnstallation Manager and Disciplinary Authority, HpCL, Secunderabad Terminal, Ankushapur, Ghatkesir, R.R District. 6. One CC to SRt V.HAR| HARAN, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRt c.V.S.GANESH, Advocate iOpUCl 8. Two CD Copies Natarajan Building, HpCL., Chennai. \ To SA BS o HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.888 OF 2011 AND 522 ot 2012 ;f--.=: ri,( AT i e., +e I 1\ i(;B t$i v-:- .) -r + DISPOSING OF THE BOTH WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS. J"( \\ b w