THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20034 of 2012
ORDER:
Questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioner in terms of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.T.I.D.(c).54 of 2001, dated 31.10.2002, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2. Heard Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Facts in nutshell :
The petitioner was appointed as Dumper Load Operator in the respondent-company at Visakhapatnam in the year 1990 and was rendering services without any remarks. While so, on 25.05.1998, the Manager (Operation) gave a report to police alleging that one P.Trinadharao, who is President of the Union, demanded for withdrawal of transfer orders issued by the management to 4 employees. In the First Information Report, name of the petitioner was also shown that he also involved in the alleged incident. Subsequently, a charge sheet dated 02.06.1998 was filed against the petitioner stating that the petitioner assaulted and used abusive language or intimidated officers of the 2 management company, within the premises of company, wrongfully restrained managerial personnel and attempted to commit the acts of misconduct. Thereafter, enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report. Basing on the report, order of removal, dated 27.10.2000 was passed and the petitioner was removed from service, besides treating the period of suspension as „absent‟. Of course, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, which ended in acquittal. Questioning the said order of removal, the petitioner raised a dispute in I.T.I.D.(c) 54 of 2001. After discussing the entire evidence and material on record, the Labour Court passed award, dated 31.10.2002 setting aside the order of removal and directed the Management to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages and continuity of service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was reinstated into service on 06.02.2003. But the grievance of the petitioner is that by the time, he was reinstated into service, the persons who are appointed along with him were working in the cadre of S-6, but the petitioner was reinstated into the cadre of S-4, as such, the action on the part of the respondents is illegal. Apart from that the petitioner was deprived of monitory benefits and promotions. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered in Deepali Gundu 3 Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and others1.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated into service and he was also paid backwages in an amount of Rs.1,88,335.45ps., He further contended that at the time of termination, the petitioner was in S-4 grade and he was reinstated into the same S-4 grade. In terms of the award, the petitioner was given continuity of service. He also submitted that as the petitioner never asked for all consequential benefits/attending service benefits, the Tribunal has not granted the said relief. The relief granted by the Tribunal is only with regard to the continuity of service and backwages.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner having accepted subsequent promotions after his reinstatement without raising any objection, is now coming up with the writ petition to enforce the award passed by the Tribunal and he is estopped from claiming the said relief. In support of his contention, he relied on the Judgment of combined High Court rendered in APCOB Staff Union Affiliated to APBEF, Hyderabad Vs. A.P.State Co-operative Bank Limited2. 1
(2013) 10 SCC 324.
22006 ALD 348 4
7. He also relied on the provisions of Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act,1987 (for short „ the Act‟) which reads as follows :---
"A Labour Court or a Tribunal shall have the power of a Civil Court to execute its award or any settlement as a decree of a Civil Court".
8. He also relied on the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi reported in Mahabir Prasad Vs Delhi Transport Corporation3. The Division Bench of High Court of Delhi while considering all the judgments including the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase (Supra) has held that "direction to continuity means the petitioner has to be given notional increments for the duration, he was out of employment in the grade and equivalent grade, which replaces the latter till he reached the end of the pay scale". So far as consequential benefits are concerned, unless there is a direction the same cannot be granted. Further, the petitioner cannot claim promotion, as a matter of right. Therefore, in view of the said provisions, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
9. This Court perused the entire material on record. After perusing the entire material on record, the Labour Court 3 2014 212 DLT 503 5 passed award dated 31.10.2002 setting aside the order of removal. The operative portion of the award reads as follows :
"The material on record does not establish any of the charges framed against the workman. The learned enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the charges are proved. In the circumstances, the punishment of removal is not only disproportionate but unwarranted. Accordingly, the order of removal is set aside and award is passed directing the management to reinstate the workman into service with back wages and continuity of service".
10. This Court, having gone through the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, is of the considered opinion that the present revision fails as per the provisions of Section 11-B of the Act. The Tribunal has got power to execute its award. Further, having accepted subsequent promotion, after reinstatement, the petitioner is estopped from claiming the relief. As seen from the record, the petitioner has not claimed consequential benefits. A positive direction has been passed by the Tribunal only to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages and continuity of service, which the respondents have already extended. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no merits in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6
11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________ SRI K.SURESH REDDY,J 16th March,2022.
RPD 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY Writ Petition No. 20034 of 2012 Dated: 16.03.2022 RPD