High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. J.

4. The Union of lndia, t\Iinistry of Labour and Employement Rep by its Secretary, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 11b001. The Presiding Officer, Cenkal Government lndustrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, M- ll Block, Manoranjan Complex, M.J_ Road, Hvderabad- j. T.he State Bank of lndia, Rep by its Asst General Manager, Zonal Office, Vijayawada, AP. ].ne platg Bank_of lndia, Rep by its Branch manager, Ponnur Village and Mandal, Guntur District, AP - 522124. ...RESPONDENTS

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 issue Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of fVlandamus, directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner herein as per the orders in WP No. 6470 of 2016 dated- 23/06t2014 and by setting aside the orders passed in l.D. No. 18 of 2002 daled- 17t05t2005 of the Respondent No.2 and declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to grant all benefits including the continuity of service and all benefits and for costs of this proceedings by adjudicating the entire matter -.-rt::e' lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to reengage the Petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MANDAPATI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3&4: SRI A. PHANI BHUSHAN The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w RIT PETITION o.2937 90F2o21 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Murali Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Soiicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l & 2 and Sri A.Phani Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

2. The Detitio ET ADD roached the Court seekinq oraver asu der: "...pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner herein as per the orders in Wp No. 6470 of 2016, dated 23/06/2014 and by setting aside the orders passed in I.D.No.18 of 2O02, clated 17/05/2005 of the Respondent No. 2 and declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 to grant all benefits including the continuity of service and all beneFits and for costs of this proceedings by adjudicating the entire matter and pass..." 2 SN, J 3 avermen The case of e Detitioner in brief as oer the ts made in the affidavit filed bvthe oetitioner in f he The petitioner was appointed as a messenger in the State rit P Bank of India, Ponnur branch, on 01.05.1986 and continued in theserviceuntilhisterminationon0l.04.lggT.Thespecificcase of the petitioner is that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each relevant calendar year prior to the petitioner's termination' It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner aggrieved by the illegal termination, initially approached the Labour Court, Guntur, which the petitioner later withdrew to pursue the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), where the dispute was not resolved and subsequently afailurereportWaSsubmitted.Thematterwasthenreferredto the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide I'D' No' 18 of 2002' which was clubbed with a batch and dismissed on 17'05'2005' Thepetitionerchallengedthecommonawardofthelndustrial Tribunal, Hyderabad before the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 6470 of 2006' l 3 SN, J It is further the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide common order dated

23.06.2014, was pleased to set aside the common award dated

17.05.2005 and directed the respondent bank to re-engage the petitioner to the same post which the petitioner held prior to his termination and consider regularization against substantive vacancies. Thereafter, the respondent bank filed a batch of writ appeals against the order dated 23.06.2014, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, by order dated 20.03.2019, observed that the petitioner's case stood on a different factual footing and required separate adjudication, hence directed the Industrial Tribunal to decide the matter independently within five months Despite repeated approaches to the Industrial Tribunal following the High Court's directions, the petitioner's case remains unheard due to various administrative and procedural delays. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not insisting for the prayer as sought for by the petitioner in 4 SN, ,I the present Writ petition and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confines his prayer to a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of I.D.No.18 of 2OO2 pending before the 2nd respondent expeditiously.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the limited relief sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the I.D.No.18 of 2OO2t dated 17.05.2005 pending final adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Hyderabad on merits within a reasonable period as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 20.03.2O19 passed in w.A.No.1357 of 2OL4 & batch contending that 'ljustice delayed is justice denied". Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing

6. on behalf of the respondent Nos.l & 2 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 5 SN, J do not dispute the said submission made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Takino into consid eration:- 7 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of fndia appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4. c) The Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 2O.O3.2O19 passed in W.A.No.135t of 2O14 & batch d) The submission of the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from mental agony in view of pendency of I.D.No.1g of 2O02, dated 17.O5.2OOS since the year 2OO2 before the Centrat' Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Hyderabad. The Writ Petition is disposed of upon consent of al! the learned counsel on record directing the 2nd respondent i.e., the Central Government Industrial I I i, 6 SN, J Tribunal cum Labour Court at Hyderabad to adjudicate and dispose of I.D.No.18 of 2OO2, dated 17.O5.2OO5 pending before it, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 2O.O3.2O19 passed in W.A'No.1357 of 2014 & batch on merits, in accordance to !aw, in conformity with principles of natural iustice by giving reasonable opportunity to all concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight (OB) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I \ To, SD/ A . SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Viiavawada, AP. Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marq, New Delhi - 1 1uuul '

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, MU'iqlry o.f .L^+:," and Employement Shram 2 i#'F|.;;i;i;6 bni""i, c"',itiri bo*rnnl"nt t ndustrial Tribu nal- cum- Labour ' c'o"urt,'M: li aioik. lrano;njin comprex, tVI J Road Hvderabad- 1 3 The State Bank of rno'a,'fte6'ov'iii'Asii'cenerat Manager' Zonal office' 4 iii:';;ilh'tlllnrs.r' State Bank of lndia, Ponnur village and Mandal' Guntur 5 o;; a-c b snr. vrnuonpnrl N/uRALl KRI-sHNA, Advocate [oPUC] ^- 6 o;;6c i. sni cAor piAv'eEN-rurVrAC, oY sollclroR GENERAL oF z bne ci to Sni. n. PHANI BHUSHAN, Advocate [oPUC] B. Two CD CoPies Diskict, AP - 522124. INDIA [OPUC] (F BM BS CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:01 10712025 ORDER WP.No.29379 ot 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( A- a' \b t i I