A.Narsing Rao, vs The Assistant General Manager Per ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1210 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


              WRIT PETITION No.17367 OF 2011

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the

following relief:

"...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in connection with the common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Hyderabad in LC No.81 of 2003, dated 17.05.2005 as notified by the 2nd respondent on 01.07.2005 (Common award passed in LC No.81 of 2003 and others) and quash the same by holding it as erroneous and contrary to law and consequently while directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners into service of the Bank as Messenger/Non Messenger in the available vacancies with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. When this matter was taken up for final hearing,

Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 3 fairly submitted that the relief sought in the

present Writ Petition is squarely covered by a Common

Judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ

Appeal No.1268 of 2014 & batch, dated 20.03.2019.

3. The relevant paragraphs and the directions of the

Division Bench in the above cited batch of Writ Appeals are

extracted hereunder:

7. Hearing the learned senior counsel for the SBI and the learned senior counsel for the contesting unofficial respondents, we see that while the learned single judge was justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal, the proper course to be adopted was to remit all the cases to the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. All these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and most important aspect is the learned single judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would sustain the order of the learned single Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases HCJ&ARR,J WA No.1268 of 2014 &

Batch 6 have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further material before the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited.

9. In the result, these writ appeals are ordered;

(1) x x x x x;

(2) x x x x x;

(3) all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer limit of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4) the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.

4. In the light of the above directions, by following the

same, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

(1) The matter shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal

with a direction to dispose of the same within an outer limit of

five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

and,

2) The parties to make appearance before the Tribunal

on the given date.

3) There is no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in

the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

01.03.2021

MP