High Court · 2025

Sri K.Y. Chary, S/o.Shankara Chary, Staff No.105886, R/o. LIG-B/177, Dr A.S.Rao Nagar, Kapra, Hyderabad{2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-|, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer. ...PETITIONER ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt. '1 1,12.2003 made in lD.No.88/2001, Court of the Presiding Officer, labour Court-1. Hyderabad Published on 17.2.2OO4 in GO Rt.No.280 though dismissed the claim petition, directing the petitioner herein to treat the removal order as to that of compulsory retirement and extending all benefits on such retirement and quash the same as being bad, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 18222OF 2006l 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 stay of execution of the award dt. I1.12.2003 made in l.D.No.BB/2001 on the file of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above W.P. andpass. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.ANURAG,(SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRl. A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER l I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.14631 of 2O06 ORDER: Assailing the award passed by the Labour Court-l at Hyderabad, (for short, 'the l,abour CourtJ dated 11.12.20O3 in I.D.No.88 of 2OO 1, the present Writ Petition was filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. I was initially appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation on contract basis w.e.f., 16.03.1985, and his s€rvices were later regularized w.e.f., j.

01.10. 1985. While so, a complaint: d"tba le.tf .tS99 was received from one Mr. Rajender, alleging that respondent No.l had joincd the services of the petitioner Corporatiorl by producing a bogus and lorged S.S.C. certiflcate. Thereafter, upbn vgrifrcir.tion, it was observecl that the said certihcate produced by respondent No. 1 lvas in fact a fraudulent one. As such, a prelimilary enquiry was conducted, rvherein, a prima focie guilt egairrst respondent No. 1 was establishecl. Therefore, he was immediately placed under suspension arrd was ' ,.i a issued with the charge sheet dated 25.05.2000, leveling two charges. However, since the explanation submitJe.d by respondent. No.l was unsatisfactory, a domestic er-rquiry was conducted and the enquiry : , :..' 2 W.P.No.14631 of 2OO6 oflicer submitted his report, holding respondent No. 1 guilty of the chargqs. The said enquiry report was communicated to respondent No.l for his objections and comments but no response was received .frcim him. Therefore, in view of the proven misconduct, a show-cause notice of nemoval dated 10. 10.20OO was issued against respondent No.1. However, although respondent No.1 submitted'an explanation, no fresh points for consideration were put forward. Therefore, he was imposed with the impugned punishment of removal vide order dated 2O.1L.2OOO. Assailing the said order, respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court and hled I.D.No.BB of 2001, which was dismissed. However, the Labour Court ordered the treatment of removal of respondent No. 1 as that of compulsory retirement and to extend him the consequential benellLs. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of ' the petitioner, and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao,' learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 . 4t ''Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner contends that the .Labour Court, having held the charges against respondent No.l as proved and also having dismissed the I.D. ought not to have interfered u.ith the removal order, by ordering to treat the said removal as t I \ t I I 3 , PK, J W-P-No.14631 of 2006 compulsory retirement and to extend the benefits on such rietirement. It is also contended that the Labbur Qourt'failed to record ariy specific reasons as to how the removal order can be converted/ treated as compulsory retirement, and why it should be done so. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside that said portion of the award dated

11.12.2OO3 in I.D.No.88 of 2001.

5. Per contra, leaned counsel appearing. for respondent No. 1 submits that the Labour Court has taken into account'the. long service rendered by him and had mercifully ordered for triatment of removal from service as that of compulsory retirement from serwice ': and to pay the consequential benefits. . It,is contended that. the petitioner Corporation hled by the present trrit pefition in the ye ar 2O06, while the impugned award was passed on 11.12.2OO3, for which delay, no reasons are assigned, Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to dismiss the present wiit"pititlon.

6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that respondent No. t hasi rendered his services in the petitioner Corporation for more thal lifteen years and \ 4 PK, J W.P.No.1463l oJ 2O06 he was the only bread-winner of his family. Therefore, it can be construed that the Labour Court has mercifully exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in a manner that cannot be seen as perverse or unreasonable. As such, no interference is warranted with the impugned award dated 11.12.2003 in t.D.No.88 of 20O1. Hence, the preselt vrrit petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be olsmlsseG,

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall starid closed. No costs. \ /ITRUE COPY// SD/. U. SUDHA TSTRAR ASSISTANTF L:' SECTION OFFICER 'o",l. ,n" Presiding officer' Labour Court-l' Hyderabad' rep' by its Presiding ,. :::":",' sRr R AN,RAG (sc FoR rsRrc) loPucl 3' One CC to SRI A 4. Two CCs to GP f On f-neOUn' High Court for the State of Telangana' [OUTI RAO' Advocate' IOPUCI LAVA'ROKASH ^

5. Two CD CoPies BSK GJP {,r-q, t HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 /; '-J -) <. 2, \ )( iHE S 3 i rAN 2tl7fi z * ORDER WP.No.14631 of 2006 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tdrrl*{