The Singareni Collieries Company ... vs Chairmancumpresiding Officer,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1995 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

                    WRIT APPEAL NO.293 OF 2016

                            JUDGMENT

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, is in appeal against the order dated 27.08.2015 of a learned Judge dismissing W.P.No.25452 of 2000 filed by it. By way of

the said writ petition, the appellant company challenged the Award dated 14.08.2000 in I.D.No.168 of 1996 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The said Award required the appellant company to reinstate in service the second respondent herein as a Badli Filler with full back wages and pay him costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Facts, to the extent germane, are that the second respondent was provided compassionate appointment in the service of the appellant

company after voluntary retirement of his father on health grounds. By

letter dated 18.06.1995, the appellant company informed the second respondent that his employment would be subject to verification of his

antecedents and that if adverse reports were received, his appointment was liable to be cancelled. The second respondent reported for duty on

30.06.1995. While so, the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar,

informed the appellant company by letter dated 19.12.1995 that the

second respondent was an accused in Crime No.236 of 1991 on the file of Godavarikhani I Town Police Station and that the case was pending

trial in C.C.No.185 of 1992. He further stated that the second respondent

had links with extremists and should therefore not be considered for appointment. On the basis of this communication, the second respondent

was removed from service by the appellant company on 04.01.1996.

Aggrieved thereby, he filed the subject I.D. under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court found that the second respondent was, in fact,

acquitted in C.C.No.185 of 1992 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, on 09.10.1995. As the Superintendent of Police,

Karimnagar, gave wrong information as regards pendency of this case in

his letter dated 19.12.1995, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the

second respondent may not have been removed from service had the fact of his acquittal been made known to the appellant company. As the

appellant company had not given any notice to the second respondent

prior to his termination from service, the Labour Court opined that his removal was not justified on a simple allegation of having links with

extremists. Hence, the Award was passed in his favour.

Before the learned Judge, the appellant company asserted that as

the appointment of the second respondent was subject to antecedent

verification and as such an exercise by the police authorities reflected his involvement in a criminal case and his links with extremists, the appellant

company was justified in terminating his services. The learned Judge

however took note of the fact that the information furnished by the police

was factually incorrect as the acquittal of the second respondent on

09.10.1995 in C.C.No.185 of 1992 was not disclosed by the

Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, in his letter dated 19.12.1995. The learned Judge was therefore of the opinion that had this fact been

brought out at that stage, the appellant company might have decided

otherwise. The learned Judge was also of the opinion that the allegation

simplicitor of having links with extremists was insufficient to draw an

adverse inference against the second respondent. The learned Judge

was equally unimpressed with the subsequent letter dated 18.06.1996 of the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, wherein it was stated that

acquittal of the second respondent in C.C.No.185 of 1992 was owing to

the witnesses and victims turning hostile. The Superintendent of Police

asserted that this proved that the second respondent continued to have

links with extremists and strongly recommended against his

employment. The learned Judge pointed out that there was no material

to support the allegation that the second respondent had links with extremists. The learned Judge therefore found no reason to interfere with the Award under challenge and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant company,

would assert that once the appointment of the second respondent was

subject to antecedent verification, it was open to the appellant company

to resort to termination of his service after receiving an adverse report

from the police authorities. Learned counsel would assert that acquittal of the second respondent in the criminal case was not relevant in this

regard as his involvement in a criminal case was sufficient in itself to

justify his removal from service, as it is for the employer to be satisfied

about the antecedents. Learned standing counsel would however

concede that pursuant to the Award passed in I.D.No.168 of 1996, the

second respondent was reinstated in service and is presently working.

Two crucial aspects need to be noticed: Firstly, the second respondent was provided compassionate appointment owing to his

father's invalidation from service on health grounds. Secondly, the

adverse report against him from the police authorities was based on two

grounds - (1) his involvement in a criminal case and (2) his alleged links

with extremists. Admittedly, the second respondent was acquitted in the

criminal case even before submission of the adverse report under letter

dated 19.12.1995. The subsequent letter dated 18.06.1996 addressed to

the appellant company sought to belittle the acquittal of the second

respondent by alleging that he was responsible for the witnesses and victims turning hostile owing to his links with extremists. Except for a

bald allegation in this regard, no material whatsoever seems to be

available with the police authorities.

Once the appellant company had put in place a scheme to provide

compassionate appointment to a dependent of a medically invalidated

employee, such a dependent cannot be denied employment except on

valid and tenable grounds. Antecedent verification in this regard must

invariably be based on some material and not on mere surmises and

suspicions. Arraignment in a criminal case which ultimately ended in

acquittal normally cannot be treated as a disqualification in our social

milieu. Further, the alleged extremist links of the second respondent remained just that - an allegation unsupported by any evidence. The

same cannot therefore be a foundation to deny him employment on compassionate grounds.

Further, even if the same were to be true to some extent, any

possibility of rehabilitating the second respondent by regular

employment, so as to bring him into the mainstream of society, would be

defeated by such recommendations against his employment. As matters

stand, there is no indication of the second respondent being engaged in

any criminal or extremist activity. Branding and casting him out of society

by denying him employment at this stage would therefore serve no

purpose. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the second

respondent, would undertake that his client would ensure that he gives

no cause for complaint by the appellant company.

In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Judge confirming the subject Award.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand

dismissed. No order as to costs.

______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

_______________________________ DR.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 8th JULY, 2016 PGS