Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Superintending Engineer, vs J. Satyanarayana Murthy, on 8 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1810 and 1820 of 2017
(Through physical mode)
W.A.No.1810 of 2017
The Superintending Engineer,
Tribal Welfare Department, Sector VIII,
M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District and others.
..Appellants
Versus
Palla Mohana Rao,
S/o Sri Satyanarayana, 43 years,
D.No.37-6-38/1, Satyanagar-II,
Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants : GP for Social Welfare
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. P.V. Ramana
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Labour
W.A.No.1820 of 2017
The Superintending Engineer,
Tribal Welfare Department, Sector VIII,
M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District and others.
..Appellants
Versus
J. Satyanarayana Murthy,
S/o (Late) Narasimham,
R/o D.No.50-77-25/3, Pipeline Street,
Gollaveedhi, Seethammapeta,
Visakhapatnam-16 and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants : GP for Social Welfare
HCJ & LK,J
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. P.V. Ramana
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Labour
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dt:08.11.2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Both the writ appeals are preferred challenging the validity of the
common order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.Nos.26480 and 26741 of 2009 awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs
each to the writ petitioners in lieu of their reinstatement.
2. The writ petitioners approached this Court questioning the awards
passed by the Labour Court in I.D.Nos.77 and 78 of 2006, dated
13.07.2009 notified by the Labour Employment Training and Factories
(Lab.I) Department in G.O.Rt.Nos.1225 and 1224, dated 05.08.2009,
respectively, inasmuch as the Labour Court having denied the
reinstatement with full back wages, allowed compensation. Significantly,
the employer did not prefer any writ petition against the award passed by
the Labour Court.
3. The learned single Judge having noted in paragraph Nos.5 and 8 of
the order impugned that the judgment of the Labour Court became final
as the employer had not challenged the findings given therein, observed
in paragraph No.17 of the order impugned that the writ petitioners
worked for nearly 7 years and have been fighting the litigation for more
than two decades as well and under those circumstances and having
regard to the judgments of the Apex Court in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana
State Agriculture Marketing Board reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327
and Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow v. Akhilesh
Kumar Khare and another, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 521, the Court is
HCJ & LK,J
of the view that the respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs
each, within a period of three to four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare argued before us
that the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge ought not to
have allowed the relief to the workmen because the concerned
department of the Government is entitled to terminate the services of the
workmen and there is no illegality when a daily wage workman is
terminated.
5. We are not in agreement with the argument advanced by the
learned Government Pleader for the reasons noted by the learned single
Judge and also for the reason that these writ appeals are pending
consideration before us for the last four years and more importantly, the
appellants have not challenged the findings recorded by the Labour Court
by preferring separate writ petitions. There is absolutely no substance in
both the writ appeals.
6. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ LALITHA KANNEGANTI,J
Nn
