The High Court · 2025

Petrtion under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari, calling for the records, relating to lD No. 8312002 dl. 1- 11-2004 on the file of Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad, and quash the same as being illegal, unjust. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005 WPMP. NO: 17745 OF 2005 ) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings passed in lD No. B3l2O02 dt. 1-11-2004 on the file of Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad. *,-"Fr.E;;@7 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 10616 O 2014\ F Petition undr:r Section 151 CPC praying that in the c. r( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n':,r ,, be pleased take up the hearing of the writ petition immediately ON OUT OF I.URN BASIS in the interest of .justice I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 46845 OF 2016 ) Petition under Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the <; rlumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nr:', be pleased to fix an early date for hearing the Writ Petition No.'1 3978/2005 and r. : cose-off the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. N O:24544 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r-: _v be pleased to stay the award of 50% backwages in l.D. No 83/2005 as co|f med in I\/.P.No.1 of 201 1, dt. 07-01-2016. on the file of the Labour Court-lll at F i. erabad Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSR IT;) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MS. K. UDAYA SRI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.13978 of 2OO5 ORDER: Assailing the award passed [y the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, dated 01.i 7.2OO4 in I.D.No.83 ol 2OO2, the present writ petition is fited.

2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Lcarned counsel for Lhe petitioncrs submits that respondent No.2 was engaged as a Driver in the petitioncr Depot and during his tenurc as such, he was irregular to his duties. As such, he was removed from service due to unauthorized absence. However, he was later reinstated into service and was transferred from Mahabubnagar Depot to Narayanpct Depot on 03.06.1998 and u,as relieved from his duties at the petitioner Depot w.e.f., O4.O7.7998. In spire of the same, respondent No.2 failed to join duty at Narayanpet Depot and remained absent unauthorisedly lrom

05.07.1998 to O7.O8.20O0. As such, he was issued with a cha.rge sheet on

07.08.2000, framing three charges. In response, respondent No.2 submitted his explanation on 18.08.2OO0, which was found unconvincing. As such, an enquiry was conducted, wherein, the charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was \, - ' J1t#C ."*asi,ri,i -rIII .l 2 PK, J W.P.No.13978 of 2OO5 issued but no cxplanation was submitted by respondr:n No.2. Thcrefore, he was removcd ;rom service vide ordcr dated 03. ..2OOO. However, without hrst availing the a-lternate remedy of appcal l:r iorc the appellatc authority, respondent No.2 raised an lndustrial Dispt. r, victe I.D.No.83 of 2O02, rvhich was allowed vide award dated O 1. 1 1.20( .i. sctting aside the termination order, and the pctitioner was directcrl Lo t,,r)st:ite respondent No.2 into servicc, with continuity of scrvice and 5C.i b:rck wagcs, but without attendant benefits.

4. It is contended that the Labour court, having 1-r:r rL rhat respondent No.2 committed zr mistake in not informing his rvl t:rcabouts to the authorities, erred in interfering with the impugnecl pur-irhment and also in granting 50% btrck. wagcs. It is also contended that r€ >l )()nclcnt No.2 failed to submit a leave application or a sick certihczrtc fo- rhc' period of his unauthorized absence. Thus, the Labour Court ought n )r to have awarded 50% back wages, l-hat too, without assigning any reas,l s, :rnd contrary to the 'no work, no pay' principle. Therefore, learned Slr.t trding Counscl for the petitioner pravs this Court to allow the prescnt u':it pctition by setting aside the impugned award dated OL.l7.2OO4 in I.D.No ,3) of 2OO2.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respc r, krnl No.2 submits that the petitioner fell sick on 18.03.1998 and u,e: admitted in the respondent Hospital at Mahabubnagar. Later, srit-ce lhere was no I I ",:3;*',,l|!t!t!Br't/ 1 ':'t(. -z t' ,,. 3 PK, J W.P.No.13978 of 20OS improvement, he was referred to the respondent Hospital at Tarnaka vide letter dated 19.03.1998, wherein, he was treated for Bronchitis and was discharged on 09.04.1998. However, respondent No.2 continued feeling unwell, arr d thus, he had undergone Ireatment at Government Hospitat, Mahabubnagar, until 24.O5.2OOO. Respondent No.2 also submitted medical certihcates to the petitioner, to show his illness. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstarces of the case and the evidence on record, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award dated

01.11.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2OO2, setting aside his termination and directing reinstatement, along with continuity of service and 5O7o back wages. It is submitted that in compliance with the award of the Labour Court dated Ol.ll.2OO4 in I.D.No.83 of 2OO2, the petitioner had already reinstated respondent No.2 into service on 31.03.2005, and he had joined duty at Narayanpet Depot on the 31.03.20O5 itself. However, the petitioner has not yet paid the Lrack wages. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition, with appropriate directions to the petitioner to pay the back wages to respondent No.2.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions/contentions urged by the respective parties 7 . A perusal of record discloses that in compliance with the award of the Labour Court dated 01. 1 1.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2OO2, respondent No.2 :!tJ \.,., t' '. 4 PK, J W.P.No.13978 of 2OO5 had been reinstated into service vide proceedings; lated 30.03.20O5. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with tat portion of the award.

8. Now the only case that remains for adjudicatior: r:: this Court is with regard to the entit.lement of the petitioner for SOok ba::l< rvages as awarded by the Labour Court.

9. Admittedly, respondent No.2 was removed [r.cm service on the ground of his unauthorized absence for a period of alrn rst trvo years, from

05.07. 1998 to 07.O8.200O. According to respondenl ilo.2, his prolonged absence was due to his i11-health. However, the pet | | )ner conte nds that respondent No.2 fuiled to inform the authorities about l-Ls sickness prior to or during the peri,:d of his unauthorized absence. Ac.r- lrtedly, respondent No.2 had produced a Medical Certificate issued b', rhe Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, for the periocl t .om 09.04. i999 to

24.O5.2OOO (Ex.M,6 before the Labour Court) to demorr.*rate his ill-health during the said period. However, as can be set: r.r from the record, respondent No.2 had never submitted an applicatiol or a medical leave nor a prior intimation was given to the petitioner. [i' .rrther, there is no evidence on record to establish that respondent .\ o.2 was nowhere gainfully employed during the period of his unautLLr; ized absence. As such, the Labour tlourt, while rightly observing that ,.Dci:.itioner uas onlg at lf W-y '-. / PK, J W.P.No.13978 oJ 2005 fault for not infonning the authorities about his ilt-heolth bg ang letter in writing', ought not to have granted the 5Oo/o back wages, owing to the lapses on the part of respondent No.2 himself.

10. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the award dated 01. l1.2OO4 in I.D.No.83 of 2OO2, tothe extent of granting 5O%o back wages, and the same is hereby set aside. 11 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed-in-part Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall starrd closed. No costs. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness Witness THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH' Thursday' The Twenty Fourth Day Of July Two Thousand And Twenty Five //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, TJ L,

1. The Presiding officer, Labour Court-lll'tt-Vaglq!gO-.. Z. One CC to S"ri R. Anurag (SC for TSRTC) IOP^UC] 5. i*o CCs to GP for Labour, High Court for the Stat + cjile-c-C io tks. r. Udava Sri, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] e of Telangana, at D I HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 1 ^ ORDER WP.No.13978 of 2005 I .,. ./,..- \/ i... .': 1,.t lr 7!'l2q ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r(^