Kothapalli Abraham, ... vs M.D., M/S Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1340 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1340 AP
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kothapalli Abraham, ... vs M.D., M/S Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd., ... on 16 March, 2022

           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

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

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.

(2013) 10 SCC 324.

2006 ALD 348

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

2014 212 DLT 503

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