Telangana High Court
The Director Personnel, ... vs Sri. T.Krishna Murthy on 16 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.597 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
07.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in/and W.P.No.46449 of
2018 and C.C.No.257 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/employee
before this Court was appointed as a Badli Filler on 15.05.2000. A
Charge sheet was issued on 10.01.2003 and finally he was
terminated on 19.07.2004. He raised an industrial dispute being
aggrieved by the order of dismissal and an award was passed by
the Labour Court on 04.04.2013 imposing punishment of stoppage
of one increment without cumulative effect. A direction was also
issued to reinstate the workman within one month. He is also
entitled to receive back wages @ 25% of his regular wage.
Thereafter, the award dated 04.04.2013 was challenged by the
employer by filing W.P.No.35708 of 2013 and the matter was placed
before the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award on
24.09.2014 and as per the award, the workman was entitled to
reinstatement and continuity of service subject to medical fitness
by Company Medical Board. An order was issued on 27.11.2004
appointing the employee as Badli Coal Filler afresh subject to
fitness in the medical examination for one year on trial basis with a
review of every three months. The workman was again terminated
by the employer on 22.03.2016 and in those circumstances, he
came up before this Court. The learned Single Judge has arrived at
a conclusion that the employer has not only violated the terms and
conditions of the Lok Adalat award on three occasions, but all
possible attempts were made to discontinue the employee. In those
circumstances, the writ petition has been allowed with costs of
Rs.50,000/- and a observation has also been made to Singareni
Collieries Company Limited to record adverse entry in service
records of respondent Nos.1 and 3 for their conduct.
Undisputedly, respondent Nos.1 and 3, who were not heard
before passing such an order, in respect of recording of adverse
entry in the service records, no notice of any kind was issued to
them seeking an explanation and in the writ petition a common
reply was filed on behalf of management. Respondent Nos.1 and 3
are not impleaded by name in the writ petition and therefore, to the
extent the order has been passed directing recording of adverse
entry in respect of respondents in the service records deserves to be
set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his prayer
only in respect of recording of adverse entry in the service records
as well as imposition of costs.
So far as imposition of costs is concerned, the workman is
litigating right from 2014. He was forced to approach this Court
again and again by filing writ petitions and a contempt petition. He
is certainly a low paid employee and has been subjected to
harassment as reflected from the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and therefore, to the extent the costs have been
imposed, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with
awarding of costs.
The writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
16.11.2021
ES
