The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to give a direction or pass an order or issue a writ more particularly a writ of certiorari to catl for the records from the Labour Court-|, A.P., Hyderabad to determine the propriety and correctness of the order dt.28-6-2006 passed in tr,4.P.No.18 of 2OO2 and set aside the same and consequently grant the relief to the petitioner as prayed for in it, by allowing the same and this writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 6(WPMP. NO: 33869 OF 2006) 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 give a drrection to call for the records pertaining to order dt 28-6-2006 passed in IV.P.No.18/2002 from the Labour Court-|, A.P., Hyderabad pending the disposal of main writ petition - Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK ANWAR PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VIVEK JAIN w.P .NO: 5786 OF 2007 Between: Om Prakash I\,4ishra, S/o. Sri Lal ltr'lani Mishra, Aged atrr;ut 45 years, Occ: Ex- Sales Supervisor, Presently FYo. 6-56, Bhavar i agar, Dilsukhnagar, H,derabad - 60 ...PETrroNER AND

1. The Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad, Chanrl avihar Complex, Ir1.J. 2. The lVlanaging Director, IVI/s. Nath Peters Hygeian Ltd. 7-1-200, Saidabad, Road, Hyderabad. HYderabad ...RESP.NDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of lhe Constitution of lnl r praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh Court may be pleased to rssue a writ or order or a direction more particula l ' one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records from lndustrial Trit L nal-ll, Hyderabad to determine the propriety and correctness of the order dt. Z 1.1 1 .2005 passed in 1.D.No.121 of 2004 and set aside the same and allow tlr writ petition of the petitioner and grant reliefs as prayed for in l.D.No.'121 of 20Cr rt. t.A NO: 1 OF 2007 WPMP. NO: 7390 OF 20Ol Petition under Section 1 51 CPC prayrng that rn the ci-r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court m. ) be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the arrears of Ihe subsistence allc r,,'ance to an extent of Rs.48,899.65 paise to the petitioner pending the disposal of 1l-,r main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHAIK ANWAR PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VIVEK JAIN The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER . kxffit 1, ,,!p 26359 20oE & wp..5786 2007 NBK, ] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.26359 of2006 AND WRIT PETITION No.5786 of 2007 COMMON ORDER The parties, the issue, and the grievance, in both these writ petitions being cornrnon, the petitions are heard and taken up for disposal by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner was Sales Supervisor in the 2nd respondent M/s. Nath Peters Hygiean t.td (Company, in short). He, along with other employecs, fbnned a Tradc lJnion, which came to be registered as Nath Peters Hygiean Group of Compairies [rmployees and Workers Union, and he was elected as Vice-President of the Union. On the allegation that he intimidated two employees, Mr. T. Uma Mal-reswar Rao and Mr. K. Laxmi Prasad, he was suspended lrom service. The petitioner submined his explanation; however, a Charge Memo dated 16.01.1999 (alteged to have come to his notice on 07.05. I 999) was issued. He fumished his explanation to the Charge Memo on 08.05.1999. Dissatisfied, the Managemcnt appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted fiom 02.06.1999 to

03.08.2001, and the Enquiry Repofi was fumished to the petitioner on 26.11.2001. Thercaftcr, a Show Cause Notice was issued asking the petitioner to subrnit his objections/comments, if any, to the Enquiry Report. l'he petitioner submitted his objections; however, the 2 vi: ;.1159 ;005 & wP 5786 2007 NBK, J - 'Y'1 Management dismissed him from service vide I'r .rceedings dated 26.12.2001. The petitioner served a Demand Notice rlated 28.01-2002 requesting the Managernent to reconsider the decisiou r,f dismissal from service; however, thc same was not considered.

2.1 The petitioner filed a petition under Sectic-t 33-C(2) ol the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , vide Miscellaneous Petiti .) r No' I 8 of 2002' seeking a direction to the respondent-Company to pay Subsistence Allowance at the rate of 50Yo for the first six months I l' suspension, and thereafter at the rate of 7 5"/o. The petition was dismisr;r d by order dated 28.06.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioner filcd t .P. No' 26359 of 2006. Similarly, the petitior.r filed uncler Section 2-A(ll of the Act, vide I.D. No. 121 of 2004, chaltenging his dismissal lronr ';ervice, was also rd by which, the dismissed by the Tribunal after due enquiry; aggric' ' petitioner filed W.P. No.5786 of 2007.

3. Heard Mr. Shaik Anwar Pasha, learned counscl br the petitioner, learned Govemment Pleader lor Labour, and Mr. \ i ''ek Jain, leamed counsel for respondent-Company. Perused the record. fL r. counter affidavit has been filed till date.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, while making s rlbrnissions on the lines of the writ aff,davit, would primarily contend thar he punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportion t e to the charge levelled against the petitioner. It is also contended that t re I'ribunal failed to consider the judgments relied on by the petition': in Ved Prakash Gupta vs Delton Cable Inclia (P) Ltdt , and the I ribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of witnesses properly, and ii rlher. the Tribunal r 1984 (2) SCC s69 I I 3 wp 26159 2006&wp 5786 2007 NB(, ] erred in arriving at the conclusion that there is no victimization in spite of the documentary evidence Exs. D-5, D-6, D-7, D-10, D-16, D-18, D-19, D-25, D-36, D-39, D-42, and D-4i. With regard to the payment of Subsistence Allowance, learncd counsel contends that the Standing Orders of the Company mandate paynrent of Subsistence Allowance at 50oh of the pay lor the first six months of suspension, and thereafter at 75o/o. Leamed counsel contends that paylnent of Subsistence Allowance at 25%;o is illegal and against the Standing Orders of the Company, and further, the order of the Tribunal upholding that there is no iltegatity in payment of Subsistence Allowance at 25oh is bad in law.

5. Mr. Vivek Jain, learned couusel lbr the respondent-Company, and learned Government Pleader lor Labour, made submissions by drawing attention to various findings recordcd by the Tribunal, and justiffing the impugned orders.

6. Having considered thc respective contentions and perused the record,, it may be noted that the crux ol the grievance is about the punishment of dismissal f rorn serv ice based on the charge of abusive language, and whether the sante is proportionate to the charge levelled, and as to whether the ordcr of thc l'ribunal upholding the punishment is sustainable in law. Further, whether the payment of Subsistence Allowance at 25o/o is in accordance with the Rules goveming the respondent-Company. [n this connection, it nray be noted that in the impugned order ofthe l. Tribunal, it is recorded that MW-3 reporled to the Managing Director in Ex. M-2 stating that the petitioner threatened MWs. I and 2 to join the Union and when they refused, tl-re petitioner abused thern and insisted that \(*'"-'I 4 6li9 2CO6 & wp 5786_2m7 NBK, ] - they revolt against the Management and stop booking i 'dcrs, etc. N{W-3 also stated in Ex. M-2 that he is lacing a lot of pressurc t uc 1o the entry of muhi-national companies into the field of products in tlrr nlarket and such kind of interference with his workers will ltrrthcr hring dorvn the perlormance of the team, and that he requested to take 'L tat'rlc steps in the said matter so that the same does not happen again in th,: Iutr-rre. [n regard to the contention of disproportiona litr t I the punishment

8. vis-dL-vis charges levelled, the petitioner relied on DL,l,, n Coble (supra), which is a case wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court ll ,lwc(l thc case in f-avour of the workman therein, upon finding that thcrc rvas a brcach of principles of natural .justice; in that there were procetlt r,rl cleticiencies in the domestic enquiry, and the workman thercin u as n,r 1-rlovided w,ith a list ol rnanagement witnesses, and the Enquiry Ol'llccr ailcrl to summon key witnesses, and there was no opportunitl' aflbrdcil to thc workman therein to cross-examine the witnesses. The Hon'blr Supreme Court further held that even assuming the misconduct olabusi " .: language by the workman therein, only one independent witness (i ,:.. MW--5) was examined, and that witness too did not supporl thc allel.r tions of usage of abusive language by the workman therein.

9. [n the instant casc, it is the finding recorded altcr ] rc enc1uir1, bv the Tribunal that MW-3 reported to the Managing Director ir I:r. M-l stating ttrat the petitioner threatened MWs. I and 2 to join Llr.. llnion and when they refused, the petitioner abused them and insistctl that they rcvolt against the Management and stop booking orders, etc. liurther, it is the specilic evidence ol MW-l under Ex. M-2 that hc rs lircing a lot of pressure due to the entry of rnulti-national companies ir t ) the markc-t and 5 wP 25359 2006&wp 5786 2007 NAK, ] the conducl ol the petitioner by interfering with his workers will furlher bring down the performance of the tear-n, and that he requested to take suitable steps in the said matter so that the same does not happen again in the future.

10. It is to be noted that it is thc spccific finding recorded by the Tribunal that Ex. D-7 marked during the domestic enquiry discloses that the President and General Secretary ol the employees' union submitted their charter of Demands with their signatures, and admittedly the said document does not contain the signature of the petitioner, though in the margin his name is shown as Vice-president of the said union; and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he stood in the forefront on behalf of the workers could not be appreciated. It is also the finding recorded that there is no evidence on record that the Management initiated some departmental proceedings or the other, troubling the president or General Secretary as a measure of victin-rization on account of submission of the said Charter of Demands; and thercfore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-Managerncnt, with the help of MWs. 1, 2, and 3, got foisted a false case against him as a measure of victirnization, cannot be believed to be true.

11. Further, the Tribunat had specitically recorded a finding that the abusive language used by the petitioner, as per the oral and documentary evidence of MWs. I and 2 during the <iomestic enquiry, was that on 22.12.1998, during office hours, the petitioner came to them in the office premises and asked them to join his union and revolt against the Management and not to book orders for the Management and also not to carry out and obey orders of the Managernent, and that the petitioner 6 )6359 2006 & wp 5786 2007 NBK, ] continued to disturb their work for a full one hour in s1 i e ol'their request not to disturb them, and that when the MWs. 1 and 2 d r not agrce to join the union ofthe petitioner, he abused them in filthy langr agc.

12. The petitioner was afforded every opporlunity tc delend his case, right from the stage of issuance of charge memo. o iumishing his explanation, to participating in the domestic enquiry',,r rd producing any evidence on his behalf in supporl of the case. The petir ioner utilized the opportunity ol delending his case and participate,l in the enquiry proceedings. There is specific oral and docurrentary cvirlence against the petitioncr that on 22.12.1998, he not only interfercd "vith the work of MWs. I and 2, but also used abusive language against t rem. insisted that they join his union and not carry out or obey 11,: ordcrs of thc Management, and also intimidated them. Further, thcn is no violation of principles of natural justice; and there is specific oral lnd documentary evidence against the petitioner about his conduct. ln :hat view o1- the matter, this Court does not see any illegality in the Order Cated 24. I 1.2005 in l.D. No. l2l o12004 passed by the Tribunal upholdir i the disrnissal of lhe pct itioner lrorn service. I 3. With regard to the grievance of alleged entitlerlt'r t for Subsistcncc Allorvance at 50%o tbr the first six months, and thererr'ter at the rate of 1 5o/o as per Ex. W- 1 4-Copy of the Minutes of Mecl ing rvith Deptrty Cornrnissioner of I-abour, the specific stand taken h1 the respondent- Management before the Tribunal was that the Standirg Orders ol thc respondent-Company have not been amended subseqtL, nt to Er. W-14, though both the parties have signed the Minutes of the lvleeting, and therefbre the respondent has paid Subsistence Allowan: .: at 25Yo in vierv 7 wp 26159 2006 & wp_5785 2007 N8K, J of tl're Standing Orders in lorce at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner/WW- l, and Exs. W-l to W-15; and the oral and docurnentary evidence of the respondent-Management i.e., MW-l and Exs. M-l to M-5, and dismissed the relief sought by the petitioner. ln that view of the matter, this Court does not see any illegality in the Order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the Tribunal, dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No. l8 o12002.

14. Accordingly,, both the writ petitions are disrnissed. No costs. However, this Court is inclined to observe that in case the respondent- Management has subsequently taken a decision to arnend thc Standing Orders of the Company with retrospective efl-ect, fbr providing enhanced Subsistence Allowance to suspended employees, the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application before the respondent-Company, and the respondent-Company shalI consider such application and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six weeks from the date ol such application. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// The Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad, Chandravihar Complex' ltrl J Road, Hyderabad. ine i;re(iOi"q-Officer, Labour Court-l, T.S.' Hyderabad, chandravihar Comolex. It/.J.Road, HYderabad. o;; bc i" Snt sHntrhruwAR PASHA, Advocate [oPUC] i*" ccriJcp FoR LABouR, High court for the State of Telangana' at Hvderabad. [OUTI oire CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate [oPUCl Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 4 6 K, PS STK \q- HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 910812025 t I I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.26359 of 2006 AND 5786 of 20t17 -a- ' ,'1\1 )' E S r.( 15 i?Iol,ffi (s C) q -,o,J t : -t Snn *.:. I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cogloA X{