✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 31 Dec 2004

Suryapet, Nalgonda District v. Nalgonda District

Case at a glance

Outcome

Set aside

impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 20022002. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Corporation as Conductor on 22-02-1986. However, on certain allegations, he was removed from service as per the orders dated 15-09-1998. Subsequently, the existing remedies available departmentally were availed by the petitioner…

Judgment

A.Saidaiah, S/o. Late Tirupathaiah, R/o. 1-2-270/57/1/1, Sri Srinagar, New Bus Stand, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND

#1. The Labour Court-III, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, 4th FLOOR, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. APSRTC, Rep.by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the 1st Respondent in respect of I.D.NO.209/99, issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORATI and quash the impugned award dt: 25/1/2002 passed in I.D.NO.209/99, published on 18/4/2002 in not granting any relief as arbitary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14,16,& 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to reinstatement the petitioner into service with continuity of service and back wages in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.HARINATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos 2 and 3: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel, Sri V.T.M.Prasad, appearing for the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner herein, who is a Conductor, seeks writ of Certiorari assailing the impugned award in I.D.No.209 of 1999, dated 25-01-

#2002. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Corporation as Conductor on 22-02-1986. However, on certain allegations, he was removed from service as per the orders dated 15-09-1998. Subsequently, the existing remedies available departmentally were availed by the petitioner and also raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was taken up as I.D.No.209 of 1999. The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the I.D, upholding the orders of removal passed by the respondent-Corporation. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent by placing reliance on a decision of this Court reported in DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-III, HYDERABAD, rejected the said industrial dispute filed by the petitioner, though the petitioner submitted several other decisions in support of his case. Further, it is pointed out that the said decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court was subsequently reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1145 of 2000, as per orders dated 02-11-2000. In view of the same, the entire basis on which the award came to be passed no longer res integra and, hence, requires reconsideration on merits afresh. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and also on perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute to the fact that the dispute raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal was squarely covered by the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court as reported in 2001 (88) FLR 93, which was subsequently set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1145 of 2000. In view of the same, it is necessary that the matter requires to be reconsidered afresh on the principles as applicable to the facts of the case vis-à-vis the merits. In the circumstances, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties. The first respondent shall dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________ Lrkm. 31-12-2004 That Rule Nisi is made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Friday the Thirty first day of December Two thousand and Four. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To

#1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, , 4th Floor, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

#4. 2CD copies.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2A(2).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Dec 2004. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments