The General Manager, Singareni ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 943 Tel

                                      1



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

                      WRIT APPEAL No.939 of 2009

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


01.          This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order

dated 31.08.2007 passed in W.P.No.1810 of 2004 by the

learned Single Judge.

02.          Heard Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants, Sri N.Rajeswar Rao, Assistant

Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3

and 4, and Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent-workman.

03. It has been contended by the appellants that the

2nd respondent was employed with them as E.P. Operator

and the 2nd respondent has unauthorizedly absented himself

and the appellants had initiated disciplinary proceedings

against the 2nd respondent and after conducting a detailed

enquiry, has imposed a major penalty of dismissal from

service. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has unsuccessfully

preferred appeal and later challenged the order of dismissal

before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under

Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the

same was numbered as Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D.No.119 of

2001.

04. Learned counsel for the appellants had

contended that the Industrial Tribunal, without appreciating

any of the contentions raised by the appellants, had passed

the award in favour of the 2nd respondent by modifying the

punishment of dismissal to that of reinstatement of the 2nd

respondent whenever vacancy is there either at Medipally or

anywhere else on the minimum pay scale as a fresh

candidate. However, the Industrial Tribunal has not granted

any back wages or seniority in service.

05. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial

Tribunal, the appellants had preferred W.P.No.1810 of 2004

and the learned Single Judge, without appreciating any of the

contentions raised by the appellants, had dismissed the writ

petition confirming the award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal is

filed.

06. Learned counsel for the appellants had

contended that the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned

Single Judge failed to appreciate that the 2nd respondent is a

habitual absentee and the Industrial Tribunal has passed the

award in favour of the 2nd respondent without appreciating

the fact that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent

were proved in the domestic enquiry and based upon the

proven misconduct in the domestic enquiry only, the

disciplinary authority had imposed a major penalty of

dismissal on 22.01.2001. The Industrial Tribunal had failed

to appreciate that the appellants had rightly imposed the

punishment of dismissal against the 2nd respondent for the

proven misconduct in the domestic enquiry. Therefore,

appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting

aside the orders passed in favour of the 2nd respondent by

the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge in

the interest of justice.

07. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent had

contended that the disciplinary authority had failed to

appreciate the Medical Certificate produced by the 2nd

respondent. The 2nd respondent was ill and he could not

attend the duties for the factors beyond his control. The

Industrial Tribunal had rightly passed an award in favour of

the 2nd respondent in exercise of its power under Section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a specific

finding that at the time of dismissal from service, the 2nd

respondent has already put in ten years of service. This

aspect was considered by both the Industrial Tribunal as well

as the learned Single Judge and passed orders in favour of

the 2nd respondent. Therefore, no interference is called for

and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

08. Having considered the rival submissions made by

the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the

considered view that the learned Single Judge as well as the

Industrial Tribunal have rightly passed orders in favour of

the 2nd respondent, as the Industrial Tribunal has exercised

its power under Section 11-A of the Act and modified the

punishment of dismissal to that of reinstatement as a fresh

candidate without any back wages and continuity of service.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned

Single Judge has assigned cogent reasons while passing the

orders in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court

is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

09. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No

costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: .02.2022 Prv