Smt. A.Aruna v. Hon'ble Central Government lndustrial Tribunal -Cum Labour Court'

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAVI MOHAN, Sr' COUNEL, REP' FOR SRI NARESH KUMAR GORIGE Counsel for the Respondents: SMT L.PRANATHI REDDY' SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following: ORDER & & {F, # * & a ,* * *. & HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RIT PETITI o N No.20 395 0F 2023 o RDER: Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt, L. Pranathi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2- The Detitio ner aD roa ched the Cou seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or orders particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records in ID No.104 of 2015 on the file of the Honourable 1.r respondent and set aside the same and consequenfly direct the respondents to reinstate the petitiorrer into service with all consequences benefits and pass. .. "

3. The cas e of th ED etitio ner in brief as Der averments m ad in the affi davit filed bv the Detitioner in support of the Dresent wrt t petit lon rs as un er: The petitioner was appointed in the 2nd respondent organization in the year 19BB for sweeping and cleaning. The petitioner along with others on an earrier occasion fired w.p. No. I I : ! , l I i 2 SN,J W.P.No 20395 2023 29210 of 1998 before this Court for absorbing them as regular employees and to pay other benefits on par with them and during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was terminated from the services in the month of October. 1998. Further the case of the petitioner is that the W.P. No. 2921 of 1998 was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2000 however, the above said order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.03.2001 passed in W.A. No. 1602 of

7999. The petitloner and others filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13451 of 2001 and the same was withdrawn with a liberty to raise Industrial Dispute on 09.11.2011. The respondent used to take signatures of the petitioner for every month on the wage register and paid the salary in cash to the petitioner. The petitioner worked for more than eleven (11) years continuously without any break in service and the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner orally on 23.10.1998 without giving any notice. The petitioner approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad against the said termination order and the Tribunal passed award vide I.D. No. 104/2015, dated t2.05.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: -) SN.J W.l'].No 20195 2023 (A) The aw rd imouoned d ted 12.O5.2O2 2 oassed in ID No.104 of 2O15 on the file of the Cen tra I Government Ind ustria I Tribunal-cum-Labour Co rt at Hvdera bad is extracted hereund er: "The Grtvernment of India, Ministry of Labour by irs order N?.L-42O12/?73/2015-IR (DU) dated t.LZ.2OLS referred the followirrg dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, L947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the managernerlt of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman. The reference is, THE SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, l-lyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Smt. A. Aruna W/o Tirupathi Reddy, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of ID Act, lg47? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?', The refererce is numbered in this Tribunal as LD. No. |O4/2OL:; and notices were issued to the parties concerned. Both the workman as well as the management entered appearance. The workman also filed claim statement. The management remained ex-parte. No counter or written statement is seen filed by the managernert. The workman also did not take any steps for adducing evidence. It i;i Seen that this matter is pending from 2. 28.L2.2OI5. There is no appearance for parties from 28.11.2018. The matter is pending for more than several 4 SN,J W.P.No 20395 2023 ,. years without any progress in adjudication of the dispute. It is felt that the workma n/Petition er is not interested in proceeding the matter any further. Hence, it is felt that it is a proper case where a'No Claim' award can be passed. As such, a'No Claim'award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit." DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION:

5. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioner submits that in view of the fact, that the Award dated 12.05.2022 passed in Industrial Dispute No.104 of 2015 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribu na l-cu m- Labour Court at Hyderabad is admittedly as borne on record not an Award passed deciding the subject dispute on merits but an order passed observing as under:- "It is seen that this matter is pending from 28.12.2OL5. There is no appearance for parties from 28.11.2O1a. The matter is pending for more than several years without any progress in adjudication of the dispute. It is felt that the workman/ Petitioner is not interested in proceeding the matter any further. Hence, it is felt that it is a proper case where a'No Claim' award can be passed. As such, a 'No Claim' award is Passed." '-'jr- *; -1E ;a=;,7 ) SN,J trr.P.No 20395 2023 Hence, tho impugned Award is not in the interest of justice, since it involr,,es rights between the parties and therefore, a reasonable opportunity should be provided to the petitloner herein and the subject issue in ID No.104 of 2015 in ail fairness needs to be decided and adjudicated on merits.

6. Smt. F,ranathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner, since the petitioner did not take any steps for adducing evidence in the subject case and the matter had been pending for several years, without progress and adjudication of the subject dispute. However, admits fairtv thatt he Award dinID Ce tral Gov rnm nt n N .104 of 2015 on the leo fth In d ustrial T ibunal-cu m-La bour Cou at Hvde ra bad is not 1 05. 22 a m th ref e AD roDra te o e co d e s ds hat res of iustice 7 Ta ki n o jnlg_€gI s k!€IAtig!! (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the : case, 6 SN,J W.P.No 20395 2023 (b) appearing The submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, the Standing behalf of Counsel for Central Government, appearing on the respondent Nos.1 and 2, (c) The Award impugned dated 12'O5'2022 passed in ID No.1O4 of 2O15 on the file of the central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above), (d) The fact as borne on record that the subject reference whether the action of the Management of Nuclear Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of Smt. A. Aruna, W/o Tirupathi Reddy had been in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act' Lg47 and to the relief the workman is entitled to having remained unanswered as evident on perusal of the award dated 12.05.2O22 passed in ID No'1O4 of 2O15 on the file of the central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad. Thas Court in view of the fact as borne on record' the subiect issue ID No.1O4 of 2O15 being pending on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- .::!st'i,.f,,a.a.r.n!].r.: ?7 7 SN,J \V.P.No 2039-5 2021 Labour Court at Hyderabad, since 2015 opines that the matter has to be remitted back to the respondent No,1 herein in the interest of justice for adjudication of Industrial Dispute No.1O4 of 2015 on merits. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned Award in r'D' No.104 0f 2015 dated 12.O5 .2022 0n the fire of l"t respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is directed to adjudicate and decide the reference i.e. i i "Whether Lhe action of the management of Nucjear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Srnt. A. Aruna Wo Tirupathi Reddy, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of ID Act, tg47? If yes, to 'rvhat relief the workman is entifled to?,, \ a pp ropriate as forwarded by the Labour by its order 1o(1)(D) of Government of India, Ministry of dated O7.12.2015 under Section Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pass reasoned orders on merits, in accordance to law as per due procedure by providing a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and also to the respondent No.2 herein withan a period of \ 8 SN,J W.P.No 20395 2023 three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII

1. The Central Government lndustrial Tribunal -Cum Near lVlozamjahi t\ilarket, Hyderabad SD/.U. SUDHA ANT REGISTRA CTION OFFICER ur Court, Nampally,

2. The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad-62

3. One CC to SRI NARESH KUIVAR GORtcE, Advocate tOpUCl 4: One CC to SMT L.PRANATHI REDDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GoW [oPUc] 5. Two CD Copies BSR BS ) i & t*l I * HIGH COURT DATED: 1010912025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.20395 of 2023 .J (J ( t riE S 14 l [[r 2u6 -Z o * :i DATCI rt-.9 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS '{ 01 ,!F & 3* {F * {*