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 call for the records from the 2M respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent in not consi{ering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, consequent to submission of her representation in pursuance of the Award passed by the ,l'ion'ble Additional lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Additionat Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.323 of 1999, dated 13-11-2001, published on 30-3-2002 as iltegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discrimination and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and grant all consequentialbenefits. t. t. L* . r'. ,.**11t. -#s,':,alr"'- t ; :'#r&VIi":; -4 !.A. NO: 1OF 2OO20NPMP. ilO:20055 OF 2002 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances itated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment tc any suitable post, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2OO2(WPMP. NO: oF 2002) Petitiorr 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 post the W.P.M.P.|Vo.2OO25 of 2OO2 for being mentioned to ctarifo the Order passed in W.P.M.P.No.il0025 ot 2OO2, dt.1 0. 1 0.2002. Counsel for the Petltioner: SRI A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Gounse! for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) WRIT PETITION NO: 20898 0F 2002 Between:

1. Andhcr Pradesh State.Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, Rep.b1, its Managing Director.

2. The Depot Manager,, APSRTC. Midhani Depot, Rangareddy District. ...PETITIONERS AND 't. MumtaaBegum, W/o: Late Md.Shabbir (Eg_Driver, Eno. 104225) C/o S. Manazaruddin, No. 6-3-1 119/6/4. B.S. Mitra, Begumpet, ' 2. Reshma Begum,, D/o: late Md. Shabbir, (Ex Driver. Eno. 1O422Sl C/o S: Manazaruddin, No. 6-3-1119/6/A, B.S. Mitra, Begumpet,

3. ltl &p-p, S/o: late Md. Shabbir, (ExDriver, Eno 104225) C/o S. Manazaruddin, No. 6-3-'ll i9/6/A, B.S. Mitra, Begumpet,

4. Md. Assel, S/o: Late Shabbir, aged about 10 years, Respondents 2 to 4 beino minors.rep By their mother and naturar guardian Smt.'N,lumtaz Begum (l sirespondeni) ' S. Additional lrdustrial Tribunal-curn-, Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, rep. by lts Presiding Officer. ...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 of the Constitutbn of lndia praying that in tte circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature : of writ of certiorari calling for the records relatirig to the impugned award dt13-11- 2001 made in lD. Nlo. 323/1ggg, Addit'ronal lndustrial Tribunal-cum- Labour court, Hyderabad published on 30/3/2002 setting aside the order of rernoval dated 4-5- 1gg6 and directing to consider the case of the 1st respondent for cornpassionate appgintment to any suitable post and to pay the terminal benefits and all other the deceased workman 'was in - service--"till-his superannuation and quash the same as being illegal without jurisdiction and invalid r- --':-attendant " benefits as if 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 order stay of execution of the award dated 13-1 1 -2oo1 made in l:D. no 323/1999 on the file of the Sth respondent published on 30-3-2002' l counsel for the Petitioners: sRI R. ANURAG (SC fOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I 1 1 Writ Petition No. 15982 of 2OO2 is frled to declare the action of 2'd respondent :in not considering tl.e case of the petitioner for compassional:e appointment pursuant to the Award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.323 of 1999, dated 13. 11.2OO1, as illegal and arbitrary. lfainst the same, the authorities have also filed writ Petition No.20898 of 2OO2 to set aside the impugned Award'

2. Since tlee issues involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this Common Order'

3. Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prahash, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.159{32 of 2OO2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos' I to 4 in W.P.No.20898 of 2OO2 and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.2O898 of 2OO2 and learned Standing C,cunsel appearing for the respondents in W'P'No'15982 of

4. For c,rnvenience, tJte facts stated in W.P.No.2O898 of 2OO2 are discussed hereunder. I I I i I i I I t I I

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Sri Md. ,,-, 2 Shabir, joined as a driver in their Corporation on 16.10.1985. He was removed from tlre service while he was working at Midhani Depot, R.R.District., uid.e order dated O4.O5. LggG as he was unauthorizedly absent from duties from 2g.Og.1995 to 09.11.1995. Questioning the removal ord.er, the wife of Sri Md. Shabir, filed I.D.No.323 of 1999 and the Tribunal has partly allowed ui.de ord.er, dated 13.11 .2OOL stating as follows:- "In view of my discussion supra, the removal order dated 04.05. L996 is set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment to any suitable post on compassionate grounds and the corporation is also directed to pay the terminal benefits and all other attendant benefits, as if the deceased workman was in service till his superaruruation".

6. Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.2O898 of 2OO2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15982 of 2OO2 submitted that the said Sri Md.Shabir, who is the husband of the petitioner, was unauthorwedly absent from duties from 29.09.1995 to O9.11.1995 as he was suffering from chest pain.As suctr, he applied for medical leave for a period of three years and the same was. intimated to the respondents. But, on O3.O8.1996 her husband died due to ill health. She further stated that the respondent-Corporation \ l I conducted <x parte enquiry and on ttrat UasL, her husband was 3 removed frorn the service.

8. Irarned counsel for the petitioner in W.p.No. 159g2 of 2AO2 further subrnitted that respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the case of tJre petitioner for compassionate appointment in pursuance of the award passed by the Tribunat in I.D.No.323 of 1999 dated l3.l1.2001.

9. Per Contra, learned counsel for tlle petitioners in W.p.No.20g9g of 2oo2 sutrmitted that the deceased Md.shabir had not chosen to question the validity or otherwise of tJre order of removal during his lifetime. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are legal representatives of the deceased h:rve no toans standi to question the order of removal. Therefore, Labour court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question. Rr:spondent Nos.l to 4 did not raise any disputes betore Iiling the ap'olication under section 2a(21 of thelndustrial Dispute Act. As such, th'3 respondent-Corporation opposed granting of benefits to the decease<I. 1 \ lO. l,earned counsel for the petitioners in W.p.No.2Oa9g of 2OO2 further submitted they have atready given some benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased Md. shabir on 23.10.20o3, uide cheque bearing \ No.0652 13, for an amount of Rs.56,653/- in full and final payment of I I i , I i I t' !. i i I I t: t' I I : ; I I I ! '; I I j t' i t. 4 additional monetary benefit payable to them in lieu of compassionate appointment. The salne was not disputed by the legal heirs of the deceased.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15982 of 2OO2 has vehemently submitted that tJle respondent authorities have not complied with the La.bor,r Court award dated 13.1 1 .2oo1 with regard to the pa5rment of terminal benefits and other attendant benefits of the deceased.. According$ prayed to allow the writ petition.

12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to pay the terminal benefits and attendant benefits till the date of death of deceased employee i.e., 03.O8.1996. The respondent-Corporation shall complete the aforesaid exercise in accordance with law, within a period of eight (o8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of tl:is order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, sh4l stend -elosed- //TRUE COPY/ SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY Asstsreur REGISTRAR -/eSECTION OFFICER To,

3. { I \..---

4. One C;C to Sri A. 5. One C;C to Sri R. 6. Two C;D Copies TJ GJP t I I t t / HIGH COURT DATED:rZGl0Bt202i COMMON ORDER WP.No.1,5982 and 20898 of 2002, sTA 5 06 tEB 2o26 1l * t) DISPOSING OF THC WRIT PCrrIOru WITHOU]T COSTS I0