Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, vs Ch. Mogili on 14 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 No.1397 OF 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
13.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16335 of
2000.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that against the
order dated 13.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.16335 of 2000, the respondent No.1/workman has
preferred a writ appeal i.e., W.A.No.551 of 2008 and the same has
been dismissed by the Division Bench by an order dated
12.06.2008. The aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench
reads as under:-
"1. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the
appellant.
2. The appellant - petitioner was a conductor, who was
removed from service because of his unauthorized absence. He
approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by filing
I.D.No.14 of 1998. The Labour Court came to the conclusion
that the enquiry conducted by the respondent - employer was
just and proper. However, exercising power under Section 11-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), the
Labour Court directed the employer to appoint the appellant -
petitioner as a fresh recruit.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order, the
appellant - petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.16335 of
2000. The petition has been allowed partly by an order dated
13.2.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the
order to the effect that he should be reinstated into service with
continuity of service, but without any back wages and without
any attendant benefits.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the
learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed.
5. We have gone through the impugned order as well as
the order passed by the Labour Court. As the enquiry
proceedings had been conducted in a just and proper manner
and as the Labour Court had exercised its power under Section
11-A of the Act, while directing appointment of the
appellant - petitioner as a fresh recruit, in our opinion, the
learned Single Judge has, on the contrary, passed an order in
favour of the appellant so as to see that some more benefit is
given to him, in our opinion, no further benefit can be given to
him. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is
dismissed."
Meaning thereby, in a writ appeal preferred by the
respondent No.1/workman, the Division Bench has held that the
respondent No.1/workman will not be entitled for continuity of
service.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the
Division Bench has already decided the issue, the judgment
delivered in W.A.No.551 of 2008 dated 12.06.2008, which has
attained finality, shall certainly be binding upon the parties.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
14.02.2022
JSU
