'1 . The Superintendent of Mines v. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

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 operation of the Award dated 0't.08.2023 passed in l.D.No.20 of 2017 by the Respondent No.1, lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Godavarikhani. pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 'l . Palle Odelu Died, Represented by his LRs Respondents 3 to 5 2. Palle Rajeshwari. Occupation House wtfe 3- Palle Ramulu, OccuPatron Cooli 4. Palle Laxman, OccuPatron Cooli Resoondents Nos.3 to 5 are (esrdents of Keshanpally Village, Mutharam UariOrt. (previously tn Kattmnagar Drstrict) Peddapalli District, Telangana' ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS NO.2tO5 AND 2 1 The Suoerintendent of Mrnes. I he Srngareni Collieries Company- Limited' OCp-: hrt'ne, RG-2 Area. Godavarrkhani, (previously in District Karrmnagar) Peddapalli Distrrct. Telangana The General Manaer. Previously in District Krimnagar Peddapalti District Telangana The General lvlanager, The Singareni Collieries Company.. LfTltPq' nre-_z "lpieviousty in district Karimnagar), Peddapalli District, ij.rE-ai. Telangana. The Chairman and Managrng Dlrector, The Singareni Collieries -C-o'P"ly iilit.;,-P.o Kothagudei.r (previouslv in Kharimam District), Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. 3 4 5 ...PETITIONERS The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court - cum-AOOltionat District ant Sessions Court, Godavadkhani-S0s 209. Peddapalli District. Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspenston granted in Wp No: 15094 of 2O24, daled. 1g-6- 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition as no merits with costs. counser ror the Petition"' ',"S Fa?[L1lflli[3-TEB?lir*,.. co LrD] Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2to5 : SRI p.GOVINDA RAJULU The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.15O9 4 of2O24 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Articlc 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following rclicf: "...to issue appropriatc writ, order or dircctior.l, particularty a Writ of Certiorari catling for the records pertaining to A$'a rd dated 01.08.2023 passed by thc rcspondent No I lndustrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I. t). No.20 ot 2O l7 and set aside the same as arbitrary and itlcgal and pilss such other orcler or ordcrs "

2. The bricf facts of thc casc arc that the rcspondent No.2 (hereinaftcr rcfcrrcd to, as 'thc "vorkman') \'as appointed as a Badli Filler in thc pctitionc r-company on 06 Ol'1981 and white he was working as a Gcneral Mazdoor, he remained absent from duty \.\,ithoul sanction of lcavc from 0l'01'2014 to 31.12.2014 and failed to dischargc/altcnd his duties for the entire year. FurLher, hc rras also unauthorizedly absent to duty for a period of 53 da-5rs during thc year 2013 and during that period thc workman has submitted an application on 24.03.2013 with a rcquest- to dcclarc him as mcdically 'unl-rt" and to provide compass ionate appointmcnt to his son' Pursuant to the said appticatio n, thc workman was examined 2 PK.] lrp ti094 202.1 by the Medical Board on Og. 1l.2Ol3 and he was declared ,FIT, for duty. Thereafter, he was remained to be continuously absent to dut) from Ol.Ol.2Ol4 to 30.09.20 lS. .Iherefore, workman \r.as issued a Charge Sheet uid_e reference No.RG,2/OCslrp(ol/2O417s3, dated og.o2.2ots, under Company's Stzrnding Order No.25.31 for misconduct of be ing abscnt from work continuously without sufficicnt causc. 'lhough thc u rrrkman acknowledged receipt of charge shcet, he did not submit any explanation. Thereforc, the petitioner_ (rompan\r crdercd lor Domestic Enquiry utde Notice No.RG2/OC3 /?,O45/2T96, dated 16.05.20 I.5 informing thc r'r,orkman to atLcnd for enquiry before the Enquirv Officer on 25.05.20 l5 ar i).30 A.M along with his witnesses ro clclend his case. On rcccil>t of thc said notice, the workman participatcd in the cnqulr]. proceedings held on 25.05.2015 and aftcr conducting cncuiry., the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding rhat the charge levelled against rhe u.orkman as provcd and basing on the said Enquiry Report, rhe pctitioncr No.2, being the Disciplinary Authonty has passed an order uide Ref.No.RG.2/PER/CF/pO / 3932, J PK.,I \lp r 5094 2024

04.11.2015 dismissing the workman from service with effect from 17.11.2015.

3. Questioning the said dismissal order, the workman approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani (for short, the Tribunal') invoking Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Dispures Act, t94T (for shorr, ,the Act, l9a7) by filing I.D.No.20 ot 2017 and during rhc pcndcncy of the said case, the workman passed away on 2T.OT.2Olg. Hence, respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, u,ho are the wife and two sons of the workman, respectivcly ',verc implcaded as legal reprcsentatives of the workmzLn. 'lhc Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, passed an Award on O 1.08.2023 partty allowing the I.D.No.2O ot 2Ol7 , directing the petitioner-company to providc dcpendant cmployment to the respondent No.4 herein i.e., Paltc Ramu, however, declined back wages and medical benefits. Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner company has filed thc prcsent writ petition.

4. Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collierics Company Limited, appearing 4 PK.J wp li09l 24121 for the petitioners and Sri l).Govindarajulu, Iearned counsel appearing for r<:spondcnt Nos.2 to 5.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners sut,mittcd that while the respondent No.2 u'as r,vorking as thc w'orkman, a charge rnemo uide refcrence No.RG.2/OC3I. P(Ol l2O4 1793, dated 09.O2.2O15. was issued ztgainst him orr the ground that hc was absent to thc duty rvithout sanctr,.)n ol lcave, to which he failed to submit an <:xplanation. f Icncc, an Enquiry OIIlcer was appointed to conduct an en,ruir_v r.vhcrcin the workman participated rn the r:nquiry held on 25.05.2015 and during the coursc of enquiry, thc u,orkman lrimself voluntarily accepted the charge lcvelled against him and statcd that due to his ill-health, he could not perform his dutics hencc remained absent from duty Hor.tever, thc u,orkman failed to produce any documcntary evidencc to Jrrorre that hc u,as suffering from ill health Learned counscl further submitted that the Enquiry Olficer has conductcrl thc cnquiry duly following the principles of natural justi<:< , and submitted his enquiry report holding that the rtorkmarL !\'as found guilty of misconduct under Company's Standing Orders. Based on the said report, the 5 PK,I wp_ 15094 202.1 petitioner No.2 issued a show-cause notice, dated 09.06.20 I 5 to the workman duly enclosing a copy ol the enquiry report, for which the workman submitted his representation on 21.09.2015. Subsequently, alter going through the past record of the workman and his representation, dated 2I.O9.2O15, the petitioner-company found that there nere no justificd circumstances for taking a lenicnt vicw in the case of the workman, and accordingly, dismisscd him from service uide order No.RG2/PER /CF lPOl3932, darcd 04.1 1.20 15, with elfect lrom l7.ll.2ol5. Learned Standing Counsel lurthcr contended that while setting aside the dismissal order,

04.11.20 15, the Tribunal ought to have sccn thaL thc r,r,orkman himself voluntarily accepted in the cnquiry that hc was absent from duty without following thc Company Sick Rulcs ald he did not take any treatment from the Company,s hospital. Further, the Tribunal ought to havc noticed that the workman worked for a period of tive ycars lrom 2OO8-2O12 u,ithout any sick leave prior to making an application to declarc him 'unfit' and to provide dependant employment to his son and the workman also did not attend his duties even aftcr the Mcdical Board declared him ,FIT' for duty on 6 I'K.,I $p_I5091 202a

08.11.20 13. 1'hercfore, the impugncd Award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set asidc.

6. per contra learncd counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 srrbmits that duc to ill health, the workman submittcd an application datcd 24 .O3.2013 before the authorities to lcclare him as mcdically 'unfit' and to provide compassionatc appointment to his son. The said application was considcrcd b-r' tht: authorities and the workman was referred to thc Mechcal uoard for examination. Thereafter, no information rr';ts reccivr:d from Mcdical Board or from OCP-3 Mine and thc pctitioncr company has also not taken any decisron on 'hc application submittcd by the workman. Furthcr, durrng pcndencv oI thc said application, the workman u'as, issucd thc charge sheet dated 09 .O2.2O 14 ' alleging that as pcr Company's Standing Orders No 25.3i, he was absent from duly rvithout sanction of leave or sufltcient cause or ove rsta,ving bcvond sanction leave. Though the workman submitted his explanalion categorically dcnying the allegations madc against him and requesting to drop the charges levcllcd against him, the petitioner-company. Without considcring thc samc, condlrcted a departmental l Pi\..1 wp 15094 2024 enquiry and cventually, dismissed the workman from service uide proceedings, dated 17.11.201S without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Learncd counsel further submits that the petitioners did not inform the workmal the result of the Medcia-l Board, whereby, he was declared as 'FIT,for duty and therc is no mcntion of the samc either in the chargc sheet or in the enquiry report and no evidence u,as produced by thc managemcnt rcgarding thc prool of scrvicc ol mcdical report on the workman.

7. [t u,as furthcr submitted that thc Tribunal, a_fter discussing thc plea taken by the petitioncr_company in the countcr filed bcforc thc Tribunal and a,lso aftcr verilication o[ records submittcd by the murnagement, passed thc impugned Arnard dated Ol .O8.2O23 in I.D.No.2O of 2OlZ in favour of the workmal b5'. sctting aside thc dismissal order, dated 04.11.20 15 n,ith well founded reasons and directed the managcmcnt to provide employment to the dependent of the u,orkman. Hou,evcr, the Tribunal while passing the impugned order denied the back wages and other medica.l benelits to the respondents. It ',vas further submitted that the petitioner - company ought to have informed about the mcdical report to 8 PK,] $p I500,1 2024 the workman by passing a detailcd order or proceedings duly enclosing a copy of the mcdical report' However, the management has not informed the same to the rvorkman to justify their action. liurther, the Tribunal also categorically gave a finding ttrat thc managcment tailed to inform allout the medical rcport to thc u'orkman and that the petitioners conducted a brascd cnquiry, in violation of principles of natural justicc, u'hich rs not tcnablc in thc cyc of aw He further submittcd that due to ill-hcalth i.e., lon'er back pain and. joint pain, thc rvorkman mzrdc an appiication, dated

24.O3.2013 berorc thc petitioncr - company rcquesting to forward the samc to tlic Dcputy Chicf Medical C)fficer, Area Hospital, and the samc \\'as considercd by the pctitioners and was referred to thc med ical board r'l'herein the board examined the '"r'orkman but thc pctiLioncr company failed to intimate the rcsult of thc Medical Board to the \t'orkman' The Tribunal on consicicring the fact thal the petitioner company failed to intimatc thc u'orkman u'ith regard to his medical report, rightly held that the \t'orkman shall bc treated as medically 'unfit' for d.uty, consequently, the legal representativc:; ol thc workman are entitlcd lor dependartt 9 PK.] !!p 158)1 2021 employment. Therefore, there is no iltegality or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal as alleged by the petitioner company as the Tribunal has rightry considered all the aspects and rejected the stand taken by the management and passed the Award in favour of the workman. Therefore, there are no grounds to rnterferc with the Award dated O l.OB.2O23 passcd by thc Tribunal in I.A.No.2O of 2Ol7 and it is prayed to dismiss the prcscnt writ pctition.

8. This Court carcft_rlly considered all submissions made by respective parties and perused the record.

9. A perusal of the rccord discloses that the workman has scrvcd in thc pctitioncr company for more than 33 ycars and u.hile he u,as rvorking as General Mazdoor during the year 2013, due his physical illness, he submitted an application on 23.03.2O I 3 reque sting the petitioner_company to scnd him to the Medical Board for examination. In pursuancc of the same, he was examined by the Medical Board on OU. I l.20'l 3. I lowever, according to the respondents, the r,vorkman has nol receivcd any communication cither from r0 PK.] sp r50i4 2024 Medical Board or from thc petitioner-company as to his medica-l fitness or otherwise.

10. Further the record reveals that the u'orkman has attended 5O Mtrsters out of 50 Musters during January and February of 2013. Thereaftcr, on 23.03.2013 he has submitted an application requcsting to send him to Medical Board for exarnination. 'l'hercaftcr, he remaine d abscnt to his duties, hencc a chargc shect u'as issucd on 09-02.2O15 alteging that the workman u'as unauthorizcdly absent to duty from 0i.01.20i4 to 3l.i2.2A I4 anri also rtot aticnclcd for duty for a period of 53 days during thc 1'ear 20 13.

11. In view of abscnce [r<>m dutv r,r'ithoul sanction oI leave or suffic'ient cause, ,r. .n".*" -"-o uide relerence No.RG.2/OC3EP(O\12O4 1793, dated 09.O2.20 15. rl'as issued to which the petitioner failed to subrnit an cxplanation. Hence, the petitioncr companv appointcd an Enquiry Officer and an enquiry was conducted in accordalcc 'uvith the Company Rules and the i.r-orkman aiso parl-icipatcd in the enquiry, further during thc cnquiry, thc u'orkman hirnself admitted that he u,as absent from duty lor a period of 365 days during the year 2Ol4 as mcntioned in thc chargc sireet, \ \ \ l. PK.J lvp 15094 202.1 without sanction of leave and stated that he was not in a position to attend work, further he was afraid that due to severe back pain and knee pain, he would not be able to perform his duties in future also. Hence, he applied for Medical Board and requested him Lo take a lcnient view. L2. Further thc Enquiry Otficcr, after conducting the enquiry, has submirtcd an finquiry Report holding that the chargc framed against thc u,orkman as proved. Basing on the Enquiry Officcr report, thc General Manager, RG_II i.e., petitioner No.2, w.ho is the Disciplinary Authority has issued show-causc in lerter Ref.No.RG2/PER/CF/PO /2125, dated, 09.06.20 15 furr-rishing a copy of thc cnquiry report to the workman calling for an cxplanation, who in turn submitted a representation , datcd 2l .O9 .2O 1S stating that he was suffering from back pain and joint pains and he already submitted an application dated 24.O3.2013 to declare him medically hnfit'a''d send him for medical examination. After considering thc rcpresentat ion o[ the workman, dated

21.O9.2O 15, rhc disciplinary aurhoriry i.e., pctitioner No.2 has passed an ordcr dismissing the workman from his service w.e.f 17.11.2O15. l2 PK.J \\p _1509.1 2024

13. Further, the Tribunal, u'hile holding the domestic enquiry as inverlid, erred in holding that the u'orkman was dismissed frorn service without u,aiting for rcsult of the medical examination and imposing punishmcnt oI dismissal from service is against the principles of natural j trstice. He re it. is pertinent to note that admittedly, the q'orkman v!'as a-bsent from riutSr for a pcriod of one ycar i.e., from O 1 .01 .20 14 to 31. 12.2O14. Furthcr dtrring cnqr-tir-v, thc workman himself voluntarily admittcd that hc u'as abscnt from duty for a period of 355 days during '.hc -"-ear 2014 r,vithout sanction of leave. Thc onl-v reason stal(:(l by him is that he was suffering from back pair-r and joit'rt pains, but failed to furnish even a single documcnt in sr-rpport o[ his contention before the Tribunal to substantiatc lris case that he was sufferir-rg from i1l-health. ['-urthcr, thc u'orkman has also not taken treatment in the pctitioner comJ)an\r hospital, as required under company regulations.

14. In view of admitted facts of thc case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal crred iu allon'ing thc l. [). and erred in dirccting thc pctitioncr company to provide dependant employment to the son oi thc worknlan is r'"'ithourt PK,] wp 15094 2024 any basis. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside Award, dated O1.0B.2023, in I.D.No.20 of 2OlZ passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhali. There shall be no ordcr as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closcd. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER J ilI al-cum-Labour Court - khani-505 209, To, //TRUE COPY//

1. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, lndustrial cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Goda Peddapalli District, Telangana. 2. One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA Company Limited. [OPUC] REDDY, SC for Singareni Collieries

3. One CC to SRI P.GOVINDA RAJULU, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana. {OUTI 5. Two CD Copies. BSK IHE S t o (J 't * 16 JUi atr e + HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.15094 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6let