ZAFAR NAZMUDDIN KHAN v. APSRTC
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M S RAMACHANDRA RAO
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.13419 OF 2000 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor by a properly constituted Selection Committee of the 1st respondent-Corporation by proceedings dated 18.1.1985. He was thereafter discharging duties of a regular conductor from the date of his appointment. Subsequently, he was removed from service w.e.f. 2.12.1988. Questioning his removal, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.556 of
1989. By an award dated 23.1.1990, the Labour Court set-aside the punishment of removal imposed on him by the 1st respondent-Corporation and directed the 1st respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages, but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits accruing to the petitioner on that score, apart from the salary from the date of the award. After the said award was passed, the 1st respondent-Corporation through the 2nd respondent reinstated the petitioner as a daily wage conductor and not on regular basis as if the petitioner has been directed to be given fresh appointment on daily wages by the Labour Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that the respondent had acted illegally and arbitrarily in not regularising his services w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 28.1.1985 and consequently to direct the respondents to regularise his services w.e.f. the said date with all consequential benefits such as notional increments, seniority etc.
Heard Sri.K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the award dated 23.1.1990 in I.D.No.556 of 1989 of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani directing the 1st respondent-Corporation to reinstate him into service without back wages but with continuity of service, all other attendant benefits accrued on that score apart from the salary was not implemented by the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner had been appointed on regular basis in the year 1985 and after he was directed to be reinstated by the 1st respondent-Corporation he should have been reinstated on regular basis and not on daily wage basis. Be that as it may, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Labour Court under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for execution of the award of the Labour Court.
Operative part
This is an effective alternative remedy and as such the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for implementation of the award dated 23.1.1990 of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.556 of 1989. No costs. ( M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,J ) Dated: 31-10-2012. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.13419 OF 2000 Dt: 31-10-2012.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.