P. Ramakrishna. vs The Insustrial Tribunali, And ...

                                      1


         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                        W.P.No.15331 of 2004
                                AND
                        W.P.No.20808 of 2004

COMMONORDER:-

      These two writ petitions are filed questioning the award passed by the

respondent No.1-Industrial Tribunal-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in

I.D.No.55 of 2001 dated 21.04.2004.


2.    Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in W.P.No.20808 of 2004

submits that he has been appointed as an Operator in respondent No.2

factory on 10.01.1995 and his services have been regularized with effect

from 01.07.1997. Due to ill-health of his sister, he applied leave from

01.03.1998 and his sister died subsequently. After performing last rites and

obsequies and the formalities in connection with the demise of his sister, he

reported to duty on 24.03.1998 but the respondent No.2 had not permitted

him to join duty stating that his services has been already terminated.


3.    He further submits that on 14.06.1999 he made a representation

requesting the respondent No.2 to reinstate him into service. But the

respondent No.2 has not passed any order. At that stage, he filed I.D.No.55

of 2001 questioning the oral termination and consequently sought direction

directing the respondent No.2 to reinstate him into service with full

backwages and other attendant benefits.
                                       2


4.    Before the 1st respondent Tribunal in I.D.No.55 of 2001, the petitioner

himself was examined as WW.1 and got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-6. On

behalf of the respondent No.2, MW-1 was examined and got marked Ex.M-1

to Ex.M-10. The 1st respondent Tribunal after taking into consideration of

the oral and documentary evidence and also after hearing either of the

parties, allowed I.D No. 55 of 2001 partly and passed impugned the award

by setting aside the oral termination order passed by the respondent No.2

and directed the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with

continuity of service without any backwages.


5.    Questioning the non-awarding of backwages, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.20808 of 2004.


6.    The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal

while accepting the contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that the

respondent No.2 without following the mandatory procedure as prescribed

under Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, terminated the services of the

petitioner orally, which is contrary to law. While setting aside the oral

termination order passed by the respondent No.2, the Tribunal ought to

have awarded backwages for which the petitioner is legally entitled thereof.


6.    Questioning the very same award passed by the Tribunal to the extent

of reinstatement and continuity of service of the petitioner the respondent

No.2 filed W.P.No.15331 of 2004.          The learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner has been absented

from duty without any prior permission and without submission of any

application for grant of leave from 01.03.1998 to 26.03.1998 and the
                                           3


respondent No.2 has rightly terminated the services of the petitioner and 1st

respondent Tribunal without considering the contentions raised by the

respondent No.2 partly allowed the I.D No.55 of 2001 and passed the

impugned Award, directing the respondent No.2 in W.P.No.20804 of 2004 to

reinstate the petitioner into service, which is contrary to law.


7.         Heard both the counsel.


8.         The Tribunal after considering the contentions raised by     both the

parties and also after taking into consideration of oral evidence of W.W.1

and M.W.1 and documentary evidence Exs.W-1 to Ex.W-6 and M-1 to M-10

and upon hearing both the parties, allowed the I.D No. 55 of 2001 in-part

assigning specific findings holding that the services of the petitioner has

been terminated by the respondent No.2 on the ground of un-authorized

absence without following the mandatory procedure as contemplated under

Section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act and without issuing any notice to

the petitioner as well as without conducting any enquiry and also there is no

evidence as such produced by the respondent No.2 to show that due to the

absence of the petitioner the production has come to standstill and

ironically culminating the production to tenterhook.


9.         The 1st respondent/Industrial Tribunal after taking into consideration

of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uptron

India Limited          Vs.ShammiBhan and         Another1 set aside the oral

termination order passed by the respondent No.2. Similarly, the Tribunal

denied the backwages on the ground that the petitioner also not produced

1
    1998 LLR 385
                                         4


any piece of evidence that he submitted an application for grant of leave

from 01.03.1998 to 26.03.1998. The said period is treated as un-authorized

absence and the Industrial Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the

petitioner for claiming backwages. As there is no illegality or irregularity in

the impugned Award passed by the 1st Respondent Tribunal warranting any

interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under

Article 226 of Constitution of India.


10.   In the considered opinion of this Court, both the writ petitions lack of

merit and they are accordingly dismissed, confirming the award passed by

the 1st respondent -Tribunal.


      As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

petition shall stand closed.


                                               _______________________
                                               J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

21-10-2022 SUS/ISL