The Management Of Praga Tools ... vs B.Hanumantha Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 514 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 514 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

The Management Of Praga Tools ... vs B.Hanumantha Rao on 9 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                              AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

               WRIT APPEAL Nos.1056 of 2009 & 323 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid

cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a

common order.

        The facts of W.A.No.1056 of 2009 are reproduced as under:-

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

11.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2281 of

2007.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that identically

placed       employees         have       approached           this     Court   by   filing

W.P.No.17116 of 1996 and the same was allowed by this Court by

an order dated 16.02.2006.                   The operative portion of the order

passed by this Court in identical case, as contained in paragraphs

13 to 18, is reproduced as under:-

        "13.    Ms. G. Sudha, learned Counsel for the respondents, would

refer to a statement and contend that the petitioners, and other employees similarly situated, were continued in service pursuant to interim orders passed earlier, in several writ petitions filed before this Court. This contention need not detain us. The 14 workmen whose services were regularized with effect from 14.02.1991, under the Artisan scheme, were juniors to the petitioners. The justification or otherwise of continuing the petitioners in service, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court is immaterial, since the respondents have regularized the services of employees juniors to the petitioners herein, under the Artisan scheme, which provides for regularization of services of workmen.

14. Ms. G. Sudha, learned Counsel for the respondents, would contend that the appointment of an employee would come into force only from the date of his regularisation and not anterior thereto and even if this Court was of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized, they would be entitled for regularization only from the date of the order and not from an anterior date. I am afraid I cannot agree. The fact that the 14 workmen, whose details are furnished in the additional affidavit, were regularized in service with effect from 14.02.1991, under the Artisan scheme, is not in dispute. Regularising the services of the petitioners, from the date of the order of this Court, would result in their continuing to remain juniors to their erstwhile juniors, by

more than a decade. It would, in effect, amount to condoning the illegal action of the respondents in not adhering to the well established principles of industrial/service jurisprudence that seniors are entitled to be considered for appointment in regular posts prior to their juniors. The petitioners are therefore entitled to be regularized in service with effect from the date their juniors were so regularized.

15. The next question, which calls for examination, is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for arrears of wages consequent upon the direction of this court that their services shall be regularized with effect from the date their juniors were regularized.

16. A perusal of the counter-affidavit, reveals the precarious financial position in which the respondent corporation is in. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit, which remain uncontroverted in the reply affidavit, that the respondent corporation has been going through a severe financial crisis for the last 15 years, is not in a position to meet its statutory and non-statutory liabilities and that it is not even able to pay salaries and wages to its employees within time. The counter affidavit also makes a reference to the fact that the respondent company was declared as a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, that it has been using various measures to reduce its over heads and that it is in no position to bear the financial burden any more. In view of the precarious financial position of the respondent corporation, I do not consider it appropriate to direct payment of arrears of wages to the petitioners.

17. The petitioners shall be regularized in service with effect from the date their juniors were regularized. They will not be entitled for arrears of wages. They shall, however, be given notional increments, on the basis of which they shall be placed in the appropriate scales of pay and paid salary accordingly. Petitioners shall be entitled for payment of salary/wages, in the appropriate scales of pay, only from the date of this order. It is also made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from reducing its surplus manpower in accordance with law.

18. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs."

Against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single

Judge, writ appeal was preferred by the management in

W.A.No.445 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 04.12.2014.

Meaning thereby, the order directing regularisation was affirmed

by the Division Bench. The remaining workers thereafter preferred

W.P.No.2281 of 2007 and the learned Single Judge, as the issue

was covered by the earlier judgment dated 16.02.2006, has allowed

the writ petition granting similar relief which was granted to the

writ petitioners in W.P.No.17116 of 1996. The management has

not preferred any S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against

the order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench in