High Court · 2025

'l . Smt.B.Laxmi Bai, W/o.Late B.Dharma E.3070'18 Driver,of Nizamabad-l Depot, 2. B.Aruna Devi, D/o.Late B.Dharma 3. B.Vijay Kumar, S/o.Lato B.Dharma 4. B.Ajay Kumar, S/o.Late B.Dharma 5. B.Rajeshwar, S/o.Late B.Dharma ' Respondents No.2 to 5 being minors,rep.by there natural mother/guardina,'1"t respondent) All ate Resident of C/o.P.Naveen, H. No.5-9-876/18, RTC Colony, Yellamagutta, Nizambad.

6. The Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad, rep.by its Preceeding, Officer, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 3.3.2010 inlD.No.102 of 2007 on the file of the Labour Court-ll Hyderabad published on 20.5.2010 in G.O.Rt.No.562 dated 3.5.2010 setting aside the removal order dated 6.6.2006 and directing the petitioner to pay 50% back wages from the date of removal till date of death of the deceased workman B.Dharma and also directed to pay all the retirement benefits of the deceased workman to the Respondents and quash the same as being bad illegal invalid and without jurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5:- The Court made the following: ORDER t r ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE P.SREE SUDIIA WRIT PETITION No.2O4 07 of 20to This rvrit petition is filed calling for the records relating to the impugned order dared 03.03.2O10 in I.D.No. 1O2 of 2OO7 on the lile of the Labour Court II, Hyderabad published on 20.O5.2O10 in G.O.Rt.No.562 dated 03.05.2010 serting aside the removal order dated 06.06.2006 and directing the petitioner herein to pay 50% back vvages from the date of removal till date of death of the deceased workman B. I)harma ancl also direct'ed to pay ar the retirement benefits of the deceased workman to the respondents ancl quash the same as being illegai and arbitrary. 2. '['he w.ife and children of the deceased Late ts. Dharma l'ho lr'as working as driver in Nizamabad_ t Depot filed I.D.No.1O2 of 2OOZ against the removal of Late B. Dharma/dece ased, uide removal order dated 06.O6.2006 and directed the petitioner herein to pa1, 50% of the back rvages lrom the date of removal till the date of death i.e_, on

29.10.2006.

3. Heard learneri Standing Counsel for the petitioner. In spite of granting opportunity, there is no representation on I .'-t] 2 behalf of the respondents and therefore arguments of the respondents are treated as nil. 4. A perusal of the record shou's allegations against the deceased-husband of the respondent No' 1 that he n'as absent to'the duty from 30. \2.2OOS to 04'O1'2OO6 i'e ' for a period of six (06) days without prior permission or sanction of leave from the competent authority and he was joined in duty on 07.0l.2016 and the deceased availed off on 01'06 20O6' but due to ill health he could not attend for his duty on 02.06.2006 and reported ot' OS OO'ZOO6 as such charge was framed. against him for his absence from 3O I 12 '2OO5 to 06.01.2006 without prior permission and sanction of leave' An trnquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted his stating that he intended to go expianation on 18.O I .2OO6 driving license and he further Nanded for renewal of his stated that iater he approached the STI for sanction of leave regarding renewal of his driving license and the STI has not sanctionedtheleavebuithesaidexplanalionwasnot consideredandbasingonthereportoftheEnquiryOffrcer, deceasedwasremoved.fromserviceuideproceedingsdated 06.06.2006 and the ID Tribunal partly allowed the application frled by the wife and children of the deceased bv l directing the petitioner herein to pay 5O% of the back wages from the date of the removal till the date of death of the deceased. The allegations leveled against the husbald of the respondent No.1/deceased that he was absent to duty for a period of one week ald even at subsequent point of time after avaiiing he off he could not attend on another day due to ill health but the punishment of removal imposed upon him for the said absence is disproportionate and thus it was rightly set aside by the Tribunal.

5. Lau, Officer of the APSRTC hled this writ petition and stated that husband of the respondent No.1/deceased was appointed as Casual Driver on daily wage basis on

11.08.1989 ald thereafter his services were regularized w.e.f.

07.09.1991 and during his service, his annual increments were deferred 8 times for his act of misconduct on various occasion. He was removed from service on 15.07.2OO2 on the charge of unauthorized absence. However, he was reinstated into service by the appellate authority on 08.06.2003. He was again removed from service on O6.06.2006 on the charge of unauthorized absence in the present case. It rvas stated that the deceased declined to cross examine tJre prosecution witness though an opportunity '"vas given to him by the \-- \ ---.t 4 Enquiry Ofhcer. It was further submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the workmal regarding the removal on

27.03.2006, workmal acknowledged the receipt of show cause notice, but did not choose to submit his explanation. Thereafter, the workman preferred al appeal before the Divisional Manager, Nizamabad Depot and the appeai was rejected on 72.IO.2006 and the workman/deceased died on

29.7O.2006. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the ID Tribunal erronetrusly set aside the removal order and also directed him to pay 5O%o of the back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was an observation by the ID Tribunal that legal heirs of the workman can make al application for recovery of money under Section 33-C (2) of I.D. Act but the said objection was not raised by the Corporation in the writ petition they simply challenged the removal order. learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an application is filed by ttre legal heirs of the deceased as per Section 33-C (2) of I.D. Act but there is no provision to entertain such application under Section 2-A (2) of I.D. Act, 1947. Respondents herein have taken specihc objection regarding the said fact in their grounds and it was also observed in para No.3 of the order 5 but it was no[ discussed by the I.D. Tribunal and not considered by the I.D. Tribunal. Therefore, this Court finds the petition liled by the respondents herein before the I D Tribunal itsell is not maintainable and thus the order passed by the I.D. Tribunal is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

6. [n view of the above discussion, this writ petition is aliowed and order dated O3.03r2O 1O in I.D.No. lO2 of 2OO7 on the hle of lhe Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// sDtsdif SLilllA[*'"T$'EiR sec$korncrn tir$,If tBsr,l?rTl"l,"n"^,* ?m*t"pHi,ffiHh"i"lfi BM "GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 ORDER WP.No.2O407 of 2010 ,, t,- 1 0 sEP 2U5 .L l) ,--5.r-.,.,,-, l - ..,-' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d