High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rnd ia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to for the reasons set-out in the accompanying Affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be preased to ca, for the records from the .r.t respondent in 1.D.No.120 of 2OO1 and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particurarry one in the nature of writ of certiorari, and quash the Award passed by the 1't respondent in r.D.No.120 of 2oo1 dated 22-3-20o4, pubrished on 25-6- 2004, and consequenfly grant the rerief of reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR LAi6Ui for the Respondent No.2: SRI S. RAVINDRANATH :Lo_uls€t r ne uourt made the following: ORDER ; : l I I j i i I I I I I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITI ON No.2O318 of 2OO4 ORDER: Tl.risrt,ritpetitionisfiledbythepetitioneragainstthe Award dated 22.O3.2OO4 in I D No l2O of 2001' passed by the learned Labour Court - ll, Hyderabad' 2 Heard arguments of both sides and pe rused the record Dleclrician on 01.05.1973, and I-earncd Counse I lor tl-re pelitione r statcd that pe tiltoner 3. joined in lhe respondenr No 2 Company as Arrisan Grade-II lrom 25.06.1976 he was triectrician and worked till promoted as Artisan Grade-llI 27.O3.198O. 'lhe petitioner herein applied lor medical leave from 28.03. L98O to 04.09.1980 ancl lhe same was granted lo him' but even after the expiry of the medical leave granted to him' he clid not resume his duty, as such he had sent lctters for (:xLcnsion of ieavc, but cxLension was nol grar'nted The petitioncr addressed a letter dated 26'09 1980 to the Deputy Manager (Civi1) e nclosing a medical certificatc and prayed for extension of medical leave . The Senior Ilngineer (trlec ) informed the pclitioner by a ietter dated 03.10.1980 that his application for cxtension of leavc was not accepted and he was directed to see w\ii- :x':l\ 2 ,\ the Chief Medical Officer ot. the Hospital maintained by the respondent No.2 or in the alternative to join duty immediatcly. When the petitioner cJicl nqg jsil the duty or appeared before the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Manager (Civil) addressed a letter to the petitioner as per the standing orders 12 (xii) and rule 16 (ix) ol BHtrL leave rules and warned him to report to duty within 15 days, otherwise he wi[ be deemed to have lcft the Company on his own accord w.e.[ the forenoon of the l6Lr, day. When there was no response lrom the petiLioner, the Manager personnel passed the final Ordcr dared 19. O 1 . 198 1 and struck off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the Company from 04.09. 19g0

4. When Lhe petitioner gave mercy petition, the Deputy Manager, BHtrL, in his note dated 1S,09.g2 recommended to bc re-employed and referrcd the petitioner ror medical fitness to the Chief Medical Officer, BHEL through a letter dated 18.O9. 1982. On examination the Chief Medical Officer stated that noting abnormal was found and the petitioner was fit to join the duty, but the re-emproyment or reinstatemcnt of the petitioner was not considered by the Deputy Manager (Elec.). having kept quiet for a longer period of more than petitioner issued a i7 years, Iegal notice dated 04.07.2O0O to thc Thereafter, I I I i i i I I i i I I I i { I . I i I t J respondenLs and requested for rcinstatement into service and waited for two more years and fiied a petition before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, but the said petition was hled 20 years altcr the tcrmination, as such the lndustrial Disputes Tribunal dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by tl-re said Order, petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

5. Lcarned Counsel for the pctitioner mainlv contended thaL though the pctitioner informed aboul his sickncss, his name r.r'as s[ruck off from the rolls, no notice of retrcnchment was giveo to l-rim and retrenchment compensation was also not given. Though the petitioner was found medically fit, he was not rcinstatcd Though the Iegal notices werc acknowledged by responclcnL No.2, they failed to give reply to him. Thc Industrial Disputes Tribunal instead of adjudicating the mattcr on merits, clismissed the same on the ground of delay and thus the petitioner approached this Court to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. (t. Adnrittedly, the petitioner herein was thc employee of the respondent No.2 Company. Though he obtained medical leave lor six months, instead of returning to the duty, he sought for cxLension of lcave, but it was not considered by the respondent 4 {' No.2 Company. Petitioncr was specifically directed to join the duty, but he failed to do so and even he was not appeared before the Chief Medical Officer in spite of the specific direction given by the respondent No.2 Company, as such Lhe DepuLy Manager warned him to join the duty within 15 days, otherwise, from the 16ft day it was treated as he left the Company. Iiven then, there was no response from the petitioner, as such his name was struck off from the rolls w.e.f O4.Og.l9gO. Later, he came up with mercy petition and appeared before thc Chief Medical Officer, but his casc was not consrdered for t hc relnstatement. After lapse morc than 17 ycars, pctitioner.issued legal notice to the respondent No.2 to consider his application for reinstatement. The reasons for the said delav u,as not mentioned an,'where.

7. It is not the casc wherc an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner. When an opporlunity was given to him, time and again it was not utilized by him. When hc was spccificalll- directed to report to the duty ,"vithin l5 days, he kept quict, as such respondent No.2 directed to strike off his name from the roils on 04.O8.198O. Later, petitioner gave mercy petition. When his application for reinstatement was not considered, he kept quiet without challenging the same for more than 1 7 vears for I l 5 the reasons best known to him Therefore, the Industrial Disputes Tnbunal rightly considered the delay on his part and clismissed t.he petition and this Court finds no reason to intcrfere with the said Award. I In ther result, the present writ petition has no merits and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR AS S CTION OFFICER To, TJ GJ

1. One CC to Sri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP for Labour, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hvderabad [OUT]

3. Ohe CC to Sri S.'Ravindranath, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies b i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I i , t i a I I ! I I I i I I I ! I I i i I i { I I i I i I i i I i I HIGH COURT t DATED:2010312025 ORDER Y TAI e $ J 21AUEM WP.No.20318 of 2004 ^- 6 / DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0) {