The Depot Manager, TSRTC v. B.Venkata Ramana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-30. The Depot Manager, TSRTC v. B.Venkata Ramana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 9825 OF 2019 Between: '1 . The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Mancherial. 2. The Dy. Chief Traffic lVlanager, TSRTC, Adilabad. 3. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Adilabad ... PETITIONERS AND B. Venkata Ramana, E-3'10236, Conductor, S/o. Raianna, Age 48 years, R/o. Peddapet Village, Dandepally lvlandal, District Adilabad 504206. ... RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dt. 18. 07. 2018 passed in l. D No. 3/2017 on file of the Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court-Cum-Vl Addl. Dist.
and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani (Respondent-1 herein) and published on 01 . 12. 2018 in GO Rt. No. 595, and quash the same as being illegal, jurisdiction. unjust, perverse and without lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 stay the execution of the Award dt. 18. 07. 20'18 passed in l. D No. 312017 on file of the chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-cuni- Labour court-cum- Vl Addl. Dist. & Sessions court, Godavarikhani (Responden! 1 herein) and published on 01 . 12. 2018 in GO Rt. No. 595, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. RAVI BABU' (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A. K' JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER r I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.
9825 of 20'19 ORDER: This writ petilion is being disposed of ot the odmission sloge wilh the consenl oi both porlies. This wril peliiion is filed seeking the following relief : "...... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especiatty one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calting for the records retating to the impugned Award dt. 18. 07. 2018 passed in LD. No. 3/2017 on fite of the Chairman, IndustriaI Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court-Cum-VI Additionat Dist and Sessions Court, Godavarikhani (Respondent-1 herein) and pubtished on 01 . 12. 2018 in G. O. Rt. No. 595 and quash the same as being ittegat, unjust, perverse and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..... ". Heord Sri A. Rovi Bobu, leorned Stonding Counsel for the petitioner Corporolion ond Sri A. K. Joyoprokosh Roo, leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe respondent-workmon.
Leorned counsel oppeoring for the pelitioner hod contended lhot lhe respondenl-workmon wos initiolly oppoinled os o Conductor on doily woge bosis during Morch, 1990 ond lhe services of the workmon were regulorized os o Conductor with effecl from 04. 08. l 99 l . While the responden t wos dischorging his dulies, he hod remoined obsent unoulhorizedly from 09. 09. 1997 lo 10. 09. 1992. Thereofter, the disciplinory outhority hod inilioled disciplinory proceedings ogoinsi the respondent-workmon ond ofter conducting o detoiled enquiry, the disciplinory oulhority wos ) pleosed lo impose punishment of deferment of incremenl for o period of one yeor, which shqll hove ils effeci on fulure increment vide order doled 03. 10. ,l998.
The disciplinory oulhorily imposed lhe soid punishmenl bosed on Enquiry Officer's repori, wherein lhe Enquiry Officer hod held thot the chorge hos proved ond thereofter, ofter neorly 12 yeors, the respondenl-workmon hod prefened on oppeol to the oppellote outhority on 24. 09. 2010. The oppellote oulhority hod rejecied ihe oppeol preferred by the respondent-workmon on 29. 1 I . 2013 on lhe ground lhot the oppeol preferred by the petitioner is time borred. Thereofter, lhe respondent hod unsuccessfully preferred review, which wos rejecled on 17. 04. 2014. Subsequently in ihe yeor 2017, the respondenl-workmon hod roised on industriol dispute ond lhe oppropriote Governmenl hod refened the dispute to the Lobour Courl under Seclion 10(l lnduslriol Disputes Act. 1947 ond )(c) of the the soid reference wos numbered os l. D. No. 3 ol 2017.
The Lobour Courl, without opprecioiing lhe foct thot the respondentworkmon hod opprooched the Lobour Court, belotedly, ofter neorly 20 yeors ond withoul considering the objections roised by the pelitioner- Corporotion, hod portly ollowed the l. D. prefened by the respondent-workmon vide order doted 18. 07'2018' The operotive qs portion of the soid order reods follows :- "ln the resutt, the reference is partty attowed and the punishment imposed by respondent No. 1 vide Office Order No. E'l /1/(7)/98-MNCL, dated 03. 10. 1998 under Ex. M-4 is modified to that of "Deferment of annual increment for a period j. e. , have of one year without cumutatrve effect whjch shalI not I its effect on the future increments. The petitioner is entitted to att consequentiat benefits and arrears thereof... '. ".
Leorned counsel oppeoring for the Petilioner-Corporotion hod contended thot let lhe order of the Lobour Court be modified only to lhe extent of without monetory benefiis ond insofor os the punishment is concerned, let the oword of the Lobour Courl be confirmed. Leorned Counsel oppeoring for the respondentworkmon hod conlended thot the Lobour Court hod righlly interfered wilh lhe punishment ond gronled monetory benefits olso. The Lobour Courl hos given cogent reosons while ollowing the I'D' preferred by ihe respondent-workmon. Therefore, ihere ore no merits in the writ petilion ond the some is lioble to be dismissed. This Court, hoving considered the rivol submissions mode by the poriies, is of the considered view thot the Lobour Court ought 1o hove roised o seporole lssue ln respect of limilotion becouse odmittedly the disciplinory outhorily hod imposed punishmenl on 03. lO. l99B ond the Lobour Courl, without froming specific issue in respect of lolches, hos ollowed the l. D.
preferred by lhe respondenl-workmon. Therefore, the ends of would be met if iuslice the oword of the Lobour Court is confirmed, bul, however, wilh regord lo gronting of consequentiol benefits, the Lobour Courl ought not to hove ordered ond ihe Lobour Courl oughl to hove rejected the cose of the respondent-workmon with respect to monetory benefits. However, the respondent-workmon is enlitled for notionol fixotion of poy. The oword possed by the Lobour Courl in l. D. No. 3 ol 2017 doled 18. 07. 2018 is confirmed, however, the porlion reloting to monetory benefits is deleted from the oword of the Lobour Courl 'ihe With obove observolions, the writ pelition is porily ollowed. No costs. Pending miscelloneous petitions, if ony, sholl siond closed. SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSTSTANT RF_GTST9AR ,r //TRUE COPY// l_-/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. A. Ravi Babu, Standing Counsel for TSRTC. [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two C. D.
Copies Prk \ V- HIGH COURT DATED:30/1212020 rlE 5I4 Ie ORDER Y I . r WP. No. 9825 of 2019 5 z (. ) 2 1 JAI{ 20tt a n "d' n' Partly Allowing the WP. without costs. @Xr"
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.