The Genrl Mang.Telecom vs S.Venkata Rao Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4577 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                       WRIT PETITION NO.20831 OF 2002
                                    AND
                       WRIT PETITION NO.15453 OF 2003


                             COMMON ORDER


          W.P. No.15453 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner seeking

a Writ of Mandamus praying for modification of the Award in LCID

No.13 of 2001 dt.10.01.2002 by directing the 2nd respondent to protect

the petitioner's seniority as casual mazdoor from the date of his initial

appointment for all purposes such as grant of temporary status from

the date of grant of temporary status to his immediate junior and

similarly for his absorption as regular mazdoor (which is Group-D

Cadre) as well as grant of full back wages from the date of his

retrenchment, which has been held to be illegal, with appropriate

penal interest on the amount payable to him vide Apex Court's

Judgment in Daily-rated Casual Labour in P&T Vs. Union of India

and others1.

2. On the other hand, W.P.No.20831 of 2002 is filed by the

Management seeking a declaration that the Award in LCID No.13 of

2001 dt.10.01.2002 is illegal, null and void and pass such other order

or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

    AIR 1987 SC 2342
                                                      W.P.Nos.20831 of 2002
                                  2                      and 15453 of 2003

3. When W.P.No.20831 of 2002 came up for admission, this

Court vide orders dt.22.10.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.26075 of 2002,

granted interim stay of all further proceedings on the condition of the

petitioner management complies with the provisions of Section 17-B

of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the award of the Labour Court

was stayed subject to the payment of wages under Section 17-B of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of these petitions are that the

workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wages for

intermittent works in Nalgonda Telecom Sub-Division from

01.03.1986 to 31.03.1987 in view of the shortage and ban on

recruitment of Group-D posts. The workman thereafter voluntarily did

not seek any work from the Mustering Officer or officials. However,

he approached the Labour Court seeking relief of reinstatement. He

asserted that he was engaged as casual labour with effect from

01.03.1986 and worked up to 31.03.1987 for 349 days and that he

could work only for 6 days in April, 1987, for 23 days in May, 1987

and for 8 days in June, 1987 and thereafter he could not continue in

service due to his own physical disability and ill-health. The Tribunal

vide award dt.10.01.2002 directed reinstatement of the workman as

casual labour within 30 days from the date of the publication of the

award to meet the ends of justice and held that the workman is not

entitled for any back wages and that he may be considered for regular

absorption with reference to his original date of appointment if W.P.Nos.20831 of 2002 3 and 15453 of 2003

permanent vacancy arises and if casual employees are considered for

such appointments. Against the award of the Industrial Tribunal in

LCID No.13 of 2001 dt.10.01.2002, the present Writ Petitions are

filed by the workman as well as the Management respectively.

5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Management,

Ms. P. Sharda, and the learned Assistant Solicitor General, Sri N.

Rajeshwar Rao, submitted that similar issue had come up before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Daily-rated Casual

Labour in P&T Vs. Union of India and others2 and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has considered that the order of retrenchment passed

in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set

aside but award of reinstatement should not be passed and therefore

monetary compensation was awarded. It was submitted that in this

case, though the employee had voluntarily stopped working, he is

being paid Section 17-B wages as per the directions of this Court and

therefore there was no case for payment of compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the workman, on the other hand, relied

upon the following decisions:

(i) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh3

(ii) BSNL Vs. Bhurumal4

(iii) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telacom District, Patiala Vs. Surinder Pal and another5

AIR 1987 SC 2342

Civil Appeal Nos.8747 and 8749 of 2011 of Supreme Court dt.14.10.2011

Civil Appeal No.10957 of 2013 of Supreme Court dt.11.12.2013 W.P.Nos.20831 of 2002 4 and 15453 of 2003

(iv) General Manager (Designation Changed from Telecom -

District Manager), Department of Telecom, Telecom District, Kurnool Vs. Smt. S.K.Basheerunnissa Begum and another6

(v) Smt. Dasari Venkat Lakshmi Vs. The General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Rajahmundry and another7 and prayed for compensation.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds that the

workman was aged 21 years at the time of filing of the Industrial

Dispute in 1991 and more than 30 years have lapsed since then. By

virtue of the interim order, the workman was being paid wages under

Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, this Court is of

the opinion that compensation be paid till the petitioner attains the age

of superannuation and thereafter it may be discontinued. Threfore, the

interim orders are made absolute.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are accordingly

closed. No order as to costs.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions

shall also stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 23.12.2021 Svv

CWP No.4967 of 2011 of Punjab and Haryana High Court dt.24.05.2013

W.A.No.2212 of 2005 of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court dt.28.08.2014

W.P.No.5009 of 2011 of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court dt.26.07.2016