The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or directron especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus a) declare that call fcr records pertaining to E.p.No..l of 2O1 g in LD.No.184/2009 of Labour court-|il, Hyderabad and its order dated.26th March, 2019 and quash the same. b) declaring that action of the Respondent in not releasing one month leave salary and not promoting the petitioner to next cadre from the date of promotion of his juniors, in pursuance of judgment of the Labour court in 1.D.No.184 of 2009 of the Honbte Labour court-lll, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. c) declare that petitioner is entitled tor 2nd pRC w.e.f 01-11-2007 and arrears thereof. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRIN|VASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondents: SRt K.RAGHUVEER REDDY, SC FOR BANK The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp_15 792_2C i9 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESH BHIiEMAPAKA WRTT PETITIO N No.15792 of20l9 ORDER: 'fhe case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit. is that he joined service as a Clerk in the Primary Agricultural Dcveloprnent Bank, Ibrahimpatnam on 01-11-1972, and after serving in multiple postings, he was transferred to the District Central Coopelativc llank (DCCB)' Vanasthalipuram on 19-01-1999 and later to p1'CI3 \'iorninpet, R-R' Di-qtrict. He was issued a Charge Memo dated 27-01-2003 with seven charges. He submitted a detailed explanatiorr on 27-l i-2(Xi-3 denving all charges, however, an Enquiry O{Iicer was appointed arld the enquiry was conducted merely by posing questions to the petitioner. \o rvitnesses ,..r,rre examined, no documents were marked in his prese rtce- Based on the enquiry findings, he was dismissed from service bt, ordcr dated 1l -08- 1004. without there being an opportunity of hearing llte appeal filed bclbre the Board of Management, FIDCCB LtC.. Iil'r[-r'abild on 24-09- l(X);i r.vas also dismissed on 05-08-2008. Chalten-eing. iris disrnissal Lte laisecl an industrial dispute before the [,abour Court i-" iltirrs I.D'No' I 8'1 oi'1009. wherein he examined himselias PW-[ anri malked i:x.W. I tcr \\'.25, while the management presented one rvitness. Sri []. Rarnanaialr 'fhc cnquil'"' (RW-l), through whom Ex.M.l to M. 14 were tnarl':cd olficer's report dated 26-07-2004 held solne charges as partl,'' proved and others as proved solely based on petitioner's resporlses. without an\I ildepcrrdclt evidence or examination of vn itnesses, rcrlricritrg tlre enquiry hiascd. lrurther the petitioner particularly disputed the il.iarge resarding Rs.500r,- loss on Gold LoanAccount No.248.1 due io a cl.'r'iciil e rror r.vlrile i)ctiil|,t]ct- ,.^. ar neither the sanctioning [rrithoritV tror ai:tcd dr:lib,:rlii-:l)'. 7 wp_75192_2079 NBK,,J The Labour Court, through award tiated 26-09-20 16, communicated via G.O.Rt.No.s7 dated 27-01-2017, set aside the dismissal and appeal rejection, granteci continuity of service for calculating terminal benefits without back wages, and recognizing 30 years of unblemished service. \ Howeveq in spite of the Award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was denied full benefits, including second PRC amears from 0l-ll-2007, promotion to the next cadle (as juniors were promoted during pendency of the proceedings), and one month's leave salary, having received only 7 out of 8 months'dues. His representatiotrs Cated l8-10-2017 and 18-04- 2018 were not considered, thoLrgh tlie respondent acknowledged compliance in part by letter datcd I2-12-2017- The petitioner filed W.P.No.22673 of 2018 and this Court directed him to approach the Labour Court, whereupon he filed E.P.No.l of 2018 in I.D.No.l84 of 2009 for enforcement of Award benetlts. The petition was dismissed on 26-03-2019. Challenging the same. the prcscnt u'rit petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the disrnissal order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Labour Court in E.P.No.l of'2018 and to direct the respondent to release all pending monetarr,' arrr! sci't, ice bcrretlts.

2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vladiraju. Iearned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. K. Raghr,rveera Reddy. leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. Peruseci the t'ccord.

3. Leamed counsel for the pctitior.icr contends that the petitioner, who was dismissed from setlice h,i lhc lcsltorrclent bank vide order dated 1i.08.2004 while working as an Assistant at the \hnasthalipuram Branch, was later vindicated by the t-lon'blc Labotrr Court-lll. Hyderabad in I.D. No.184 of 2009, rvhich, b-,' orde i Catecl :6.(i9.10 16. sct aside both the J wp_15 792 _2C19 dismissal and the appellate order dated 05.08.2008, held tl'rat the petitioner lrad alrcady attained superannuation, and declared irinr cntitlcd to all terminal benefits with continuity of service, though not to back wages oi attendant benefits. It is contended that in spite olclear direction of the Labour Court, the respondent failed to fully comply with the Award, particularly by not releasing the benefits under the Pay Revisions due from 01.11.2002 and 01.11.2007, and by denying the petitioner the consequential benefits including' promotion and other service-related entitlements. The petitioner, aggrieved by such non-cornpliance, initially trled W.P. No.22673 of 2018, which was dismissed on 0,5.07.20 l8 rvitli liberty to seek execution before the Labour Court, pursuant to which E.P. No.l of 2018 was filed, howeverthe same was dismissed on 26.03.2019 rvitl:out due appreciation of the entitlement arising fion., tlr,-'Aqard. [t is contended that the respondent's failure to implement tl.re Arvard in its entirct_\,. oarticularly in relation to monetary and service berrelits acciueri during th+ period of wrongful termination, is arbitrar-; arrd ijlcaal.

4. [-carned counsel for the respondent, basing on the countcr af fidavit. e ssentiail., contends that the writ petition is devoid of nr.-rii iud iur().rnts to an abLrse of'process, as the petitioner is seeking relie r.s whicir rvcre rreither claimed nor granted in I.D. No.184 of 2009 belirre thc iiorr'blc [-abour C'our1-lll, Hyderabad. It is contended that the petitiorrer. rvlro servcd as an Assistant at Vanasthalipuram Branclr tionr i 9.0 I . lgi.)t) t() 13.08.100 l. was dismissed from serv-ice by order datcd ll.Oli.l00.l liter beir..s lound guiltl of serious charges including nrisiipplopliatio;r ot' Rs.45.85 lakhs. and that the dismissal and appellate oldcls riatcd

05.08.2()()S rvere ad.iudicated upon in detail by the [,ahoLrr'IoLrrt. rrhicir. rvir;lr sr',t.rrr thern aside, held that only Charges 3 and .1 r,,lii i)r.-)', ':d. iin(i \ 4 wp_15792_201! NBK, J diriected release of terminal benefits withorrr back wages or attcndanr benefits' It is contendea that the respondent bank, in faithful compriance u'ith the Award dateri 26-09.2016, rereased lenninar benelits incruding Ieave salary and gratuity to rhe petitioner.s S.B. Account No.150922010000267 on 25.09.2017, and upon discovery of a pending salary component for twelve (12) days of eanted leave, released the same on 22'09'20rg and informed the petitioner rhrough refter datecr 26'08'2019' It is contended that there is no order directing benefits under Pay Revisions effective from 0l .U.2t)02. and 0l .11.2007 or any promotional consideration, and the petitioner.s artempt to seek such benefits now is iegaily untenable and contrary to the [-abour Court,s ibard. It is also contencled that the writ petltiorr. fiied eariier i.e., w'P'No'22673 0f 20lg was dismisse, on 0-<.07.10 rg. with riberty to seek execution, pursuant to which E.p. No. I of 20ig rvas filed and rightly ciismissed on 26.03.2019 for lack of merit: ihLrs. rl:c lri.esenr ivrit petition :;eeks to re-agitate seftled issues under iilc g, isc o{_ seeking irrplementation, and therefore the writ petition is Iiahic r. bc disrnissed. -i. Having considered the respective contcn irDris lind pe rused the record, it may be noted thal the Award passed bi rh._ y.u.,or,. Court in ID lrrc. l84 of 2009 speaks that the petitioner is not ;;.:titlerJ for backwages a,. attendant benefits fiom 11.0.q.2004 [ill s.i;er.nrrualion. except for "'ontinuity of service, the out of sen,ice periori wiricir can hc considered *hiie caiculating terminal beneiits. It is io bc noi.erl tliat ii rs scttled law. i..,at in cases of setting aside the drsmissal order and r.cinstating into service' unress tlre cou6 specifies that thc incurnbcnt is cntitrecr to back '.\'rqcs cl' an-v rysflgta, benefits- the sarne ca:.,nol h,-. clai,rre ti ils :, rrattcr 5 wp_15792-2A79 NBK, I of routinc rnerell lbr the reason the incumbent is reinstated into servicL- by setting tl.re dismissal orders aside.

6. In the instant case, the Labour Court after due enquiry hiis specificalll'obsen'ed that the petitioner is not entitled to back u'ages anci attendant bcneflts liom I 1.08.2004 till superannuation, except tor continuity o1'service for the purpose ofterminal benefits. The respondent- Bank, as can be secn from the record, has paid out the terminal benei'its, namell' Leave Salary and Gratuity. to the petitioner's S.B. 4."si111 \o' 1509220 10000267 on 25.09.2017, which was duly commtrnicated through lettel dated 01 .10.2017, apart from payment of l2 days of Eiirr'ccl Leave salary on 21.08.2019 and informed the petitioner vide letter clated 26.08.20 19, iu co:npliance with the order in E.P. No. I of 20 l8 -['l''erc being nrr dircctiorr to grant al)y other benefit, excepl for continuitv o.' ser-vice for tlie pnrposc of terminal benefits, the petitioner now seckirtg t,., inrplerncni Pay'Ii.evision from 01.11.2002 and 01.11-2001 or rrt' promctrion -rc late d relief, would amount to overreaching the Ar.r:Lrd .r;-icel

26.09.20 l6 passed by' the Labour Court. The petitioner cannot re-a!,itat: thc issues that arc cithei expressly denied or not granted in the t--r'iginai Ar.,r,ar.d. [n that vicrv of the rn atter, there is no illegality in tire ordcr ijat.r.l 26.03.2019 in Il.t', No. lof 2018. Thc $'rit petiiion i.s accordingly dismissed. No cost's. IVlisce'i'rtr''''':r''; ,1 . petitions pending. ifany. shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY/I ""13r[f i,.lf ^Et'"TS'ttR SECTTffBFFICER To, 1 2 I!:,:,",ff tX,T,T?'%?-??"1'-?"S?1t'?t3'T'?l'l'lJ#:fi"ll'?Btrictco One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU' Advocate tOPUCl

3. One CC to SRI K.RAGHUVEER REDDY, SC for Hyderabad Distrrct Co_ operative Central Bank Ltd. IOPUC]

4. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP tr/ / HIGH COURT DA-TED:2810512025 \ ORDER WP.No.15792 of 2019 q o o 1i-lE :i 147 o a;. 1 ! j. 2 e) TClsM oEsppr c,'r" I * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7 /.4 // //. 2