High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ of Certiorari calling for the records from Respondent No.1 pertaining to award dt.30.09.2015 in lD.No.14 of 2011 passed by Respondent No.1 and quash the same in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(W PMP. NO: 7595 OF 2016) Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to , ;ii -"a_ .t' -'{:y' suspend the operation of the order dt.30.09.2015 passed in lD.No.'14 o'f 2011 by the Respondenl No.1, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. A.BHAVANI, REP. FOR SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL Counsel for the Respondent no.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T.RAMACHANDER RAO The Court madr: the following: ORDER THE oN' LE N E H M A wRIT P TITT NNo 5982 oF2 l6 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed calling for- the records lrom respondent No.l pertaining to award dated 30.O9.2015 in I.D.No.14 of 2017 passed by respondent No.1 ar-rd quash the

2. Heard Ms.A.Bhavani, learned counsel representing Mr.P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited and learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent No.1. perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that 2.d respondent was appointed in the petitioner company on 2g.O4 .1980 as a Badli Filler and as a Coal Filler from 04.01.19g2. He was charge-sheeted under Company Standing Orders No.25 for habitual absenteeism. Despite receiving enquiry notices dated 21.O8.2OO2 and O4.IO.2OO2, he failed to attend the enquiry. The Enquiry Ofhcer found him guilty on 17.IO.2OO2. A Show Cause Notice dated 13.11.2002 was 2 N I'] K.J wP 5982 2016 issued, but he did not respond. Since he faiied to meet the \ minimurn muster requirements from 1998 onrvards, he was dismissr:d uide order dated 30.O3.2003, effectrve 31.03.2003. After ei;3ht vears, 2nd respondent filed I.D.No. f4 of 2Oll, which is not maintainable as the Petitioner Company is governerl b1, Central Acts, not State Amendments. Responclent No. 1 u,rongly set aside the disrnrssal order on

30.09.2()15, treating it as voluntary retirement and directing payment of service benefits, but denied back r.r'ages. This r.r'as incorrect as the 2"d respondent had grossly violated attendarce requirements and failed to appeal rvithin 45 days under Company Standing Order No.29 Furthermore, employe'es dismissed after proper enquiry are not eligible for volunta:1 retirement benefits. Therefore, the award modifying the dismissal to voluntary retirement is contrary to laq. and liable to be quashed.

4. Le arned Standing Counsel for the petitioners placed on record the proceedings dated 14.02.2017 and 28.06.2025, whereir it is stated that 2"a respondent was removed from service with effect from 3 1 .03 .2OO3 c,n account of absenteeism. However, the Industrial Tribut-ral directed that -, 3 N BK,J wP 5982 2016 the removal be treated as voluntary retirement from the date of his last attendance in 2003 and directed the petitioner company to pay the difference in service benehts, if any, to the 2"d respondent within a period of 30 days. Aggrieved by the award, Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short, The SCCL') filed this Writ Petition, and this Court, uid.e interim order dated 24.02.2016, granted a stay, subject to the petitioners paying half of the benelits granted b,v the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 14 of 2Ol i within eight r,r,eeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is further stated that 2"d respondent is not entitled to any additional benefits in view of the modification of the punishment from dismissal to voluntary retirement. However, The SCCL has paid a1l terminal benefits as per eligibility and the prevailing procedures.

5. in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award dated 30.09.2015 passed by respondent No.1 in LD.No.14 of 2OIl is legatly unsustainable. Respondent No.1 erred in treating the punishment of dismissal as volunta4r retirement, despite clear findings of misconduct based ona duly conducted t I I + NBK.J wP 5982 20 t6 enquiry and the absence of any appeal bv 2"d respondent under the applicable Standing Orders. Further, an employee who has been dismissed after due process is not entitled to the benefits of the Voluntarl Retirement Scheme. It may be further noted that 2n,t respondent was rightl-r dismissed from service bv the Petitioner Company throuqh order dated

30.03.2C03 and is not entitled to any further service benefits or relief under the guise of voluntary retirement.

6. Ac cordlngly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the award clated 30-O9.2015 passed by respondent No.1 in I.D. No.14 ol 2011 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs M: scellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. I Th at Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon,bte'drff-SUjOY paUi, f6" n"ting Chief Justice on this Wednesday' the Ninth Day of Juiy, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' //TRUE COPY/i SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR F--:--===- - $Ecrou oFFlcER To, l.TheChair.man-cum-Presidingofficer,lndustrialTribunal-cum-Labourcourt.. cum_vl Addl. District, ani B"i.ion. court, Godavarikhani, Godavarikhani, Karimnag ar District.

2. The chiel General lt4anager, The Singaleni collieries co. Ltd., Ramagundam 3. The lVlan;lging Director, The Singareni Collieries Co' Ltd'' PO Kothagudem' Area -1, PO Godavarikhani, Karimnagar ljlstnct Dist. Khatnmam

4. One CC tc SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL [OPUC] 5. One CC tc SRI T.RATUACHANDER RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 6.TwoCCs,toGPFoRLABoUR,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabzrd [OUT] 7. Two CD (lopies { F BSR l I l ) HIGH COIJRT DATED:0!)10712025 I I R1' I I.( i.t 19 sep Zozi ,,\ ,1 i / '.- .'.. ORDER WP.No.5982 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (b @ 7{d"-