Sri. K.L.N. Chary, S/O. K. ... vs The Managing Director, Lokesh ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2572 Tel

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

                        W.A.No.561 of 2009

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


     This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders

passed in W.P.No.16777 of 1997 dt.18-11-2008.


      2.   Heard Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned

Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that

the appellant and 13 others were workmen working in

the 1st respondent's company and the 1st respondent

has retrenched the appellant and 13 other workers

working with its company. Aggrieved by the said

action of the 1st respondent, the appellant and 13

others have raised industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer and after conciliation talks were

failed, the dispute was referred by the appropriate 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.561 of 2009

Government to the Industrial Tribunal (for short 'the

Tribunal') under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') and the

same was numbered as I.D.No.75 of 1994.

4. It has been further contended by the

appellant that the 1st respondent without following

Rule 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes

Rules, 1958 has retrenched the appellant and 13

others and the Tribunal was pleased to pass an award

in favour of the appellant vide orders dt.04-02-1997

holding that the retrenchment of the appellant was in

violation of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 and directed

that the appellant be reinstated into service with full

back wages and other benefits with continuity of

service. In respect of certain other workmen, the

Tribunal has held that the retrenchment is valid and

confirmed the same. However, in respect of the

appellant, the Tribunal has given a finding that the

appellant be reinstated into service with full back 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.561 of 2009

wages with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the

orders of the Tribunal in I.D.No.75 of 1994

dt.04-02-1997, the 1st respondent has filed

W.P.No.16777 of 1997 and this Court was pleased to

allow the said Writ Petition by setting aside the orders

of the Tribunal in I.D.No.75 of 1994

dt.04-02-1997 without appreciating any of the

contentions raised by the appellant. Learned counsel

for the appellant had contended that the 1st

respondent had retrenched the appellant from service

without paying retrenchment allowance. Therefore,

appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by

directing the 1st respondent to pay retrenchment

allowance in terms of Section 25-F of the Act.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st

respondent-management had contended that the 1st

respondent had issued retrenchment compensation to

the appellant but he has refused to accept the

retrenchment compensation. If the appellant submits 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.561 of 2009

a representation seeking retrenchment compensation,

then the 1st respondent would consider the same and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and

pay the retrenchment compensation as per the

entitlement of the appellant in accordance with the

Rules.

6. This Court having considered the rival

submissions made by the parties is of the considered

view that this Writ Appeal can be disposed of directing

the appellant to submit a fresh representation to the

1st respondent seeking retrenchment compensation

within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order and upon such representation is being

received, the 1st respondent shall consider the same

and pass appropriate orders and also release

retrenchment compensation to the appellant in

accordance with Rules in another 60 days.

                              5                        HCJ & AKS,J
                                                 W.A.No.561 of 2009

7. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is

allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 10.06.2022 Kvr