Telangana High Court
M/S. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital ... vs The Presiding Oficer on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
and
The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
Writ Appeal No.172 of 2020
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present appeal is arising out of order dated 11.12.2018,
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26593 of 2003.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent
No.2/workman was engaged on 01.07.1996 as a lift operator. He
was disengaged on 05.05.1999. He raised an Industrial Dispute
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short
'the Act'), before the Industrial Tribunal-I, for setting aside the earlier
order of termination and for reinstatement into service with full
backwages. Finally, an award was passed on 30.06.2003 directing
reinstatement of workman into service and setting aside the oral
termination dated 05.05.1999. A further direction was also issued to
regularise the services of the workman.
3. The award, which is on record makes it very clear that evidence
was adduced by the employer as well as by the workman and finding
of fact has been arrived at that the workman was terminated from
service without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.
The appellant/employer, being aggrieved by the award passed by the
Labour Court, preferred a writ petition stating that that in the light of
the judgment delivered in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi
and others and State of Bihar and others1, the Labour Court
could not have directed regularisation of the workman. Not only
this, reliance was also placed on the Judgment delivered in
W.A.No.164 of 2004. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed
the Writ Petition, the operative portion of which reads as under:
"Having considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the
considered view that the Tribunal has rightly passed the
Award in favour of the 2nd respondent-workman. Since the
2nd respondent-workman has specifically pleaded that his
juniors were continued in service and their services were
also regularized, in order to do complete justice, the
Tribunal had directed the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd
respondent-workman into service by setting aside the oral
termination dated 5.5.1999. The Tribunal has no power to
direct the petitioner to regularize the services of the 2nd
respondent-workman and only to that limited extent, the
Tribunal erred in giving such a direction. In respect of other
aspects, such as setting aside the order of termination and
directing reinstatement of the workman into service are all
well within its power. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. The Award passed by the Tribunal to the extent
of directing the petitioner to regularize the services of the
2nd respondent-workman is set aside and rest of the Award
dated 30.06.2003 passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.79 of
2001 is upheld. No costs."
4. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. It is an undisputed fact that respondent
No.2/workman was removed from service without following the
1997 (76) 236
provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act. The finding of fact
is based upon the statement of witnesses and the record produced by
the employer and therefore, as there was violation of Section 25F of
the Act, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ
petition to the extent the award directed reinstatement into service.
Learned Single Judge further set aside the order directing
regularization of respondent No.2/workman into service. This
Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
5. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently,
Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, stand dismissed.
_______________________
Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ
____________________
A. Rajasheker Reddy, J
Date: 08.11.2021
lur
