The Management Of Singareni ... vs The Industrial Tribunal I, Hyd. 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1107 Tel

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                              AND

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI


             WRIT APPEAL No.991 of 2010

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



     The present Writ Appeal is arising out of the

order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned Single

Judge in Writ Petition No.16824 of 1994.


2.   The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition

was preferred by the present appellant being aggrieved

by Award dated 04.02.1994 in Industrial Dispute

No.64 of 1989 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I,

Hyderabad.


3.   The disputed facts of the case reveal that the

appropriate Government, in exercise of its power

conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, has referred the dispute to the Tribunal for

adjudication, and the same is reproduced as under :
                                        ::2::                              HCJ & AKS,J
                                                                         wa_991_2010


              "Whether     the       action    of     the    Management     of
     M/s.Singareni       Collieries       Company           Limited,   Area-I,
     Ramagundam          Division,      P.O.        Godavarikhani,     District
     Karimnagar (AP) in not granting Grade 'D' from 1980 and
     Grade 'C' from 01.03.1987 to Sri K. Narsaiah, Lorry Driver,
     GDK 2-A Incline, is justified ?            If not, to what relief the
     concerned workman is entitled ?"

4.   The Tribunal has passed an Award holding that

the workman is entitled for Grade 'D' from 1980 and

Grade 'C' from 01.03.1987. The Industrial Tribunal, in

paragraph Nos.11 and 12, after scanning the entire

evidence on record, held as under :


     "11.     A perusal of Ex.M.6 - Service Card of Bashu Miya. The
     contents on page no.5 of Ex.M.6 reads as follows :

              "He was transferred from Bellampalli (MM) as Acting
     Driver in the year 1976 and was confirmed as Driver Category
     V      w.e.f.   19.10.1975         No.DPO/RG/5B/75/1660             dated
     19.10.1975."

              Though Bashu Miya was working as Acting Driver in the
     year 1976 he was given promotion with retrospective effect, i.e.,
     from 19.10.1975. Basing on this point, Sri K. Narsaiah should
     be given promotion with retrospective effect, i.e., he becomes
     entitled for Grade 'D' post from 01.03.1980.

     12.      In the result, the action of the Management of M/s.
     Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Area - I, Ramagundam
     Division, P.O. Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar (A.P.) in not
                                  ::3::                          HCJ & AKS,J
                                                               wa_991_2010


      granting Grade 'D' from 1980 and Grade 'C' from 01.03.1987
      to Sri K. Narsaiah, Lorry Driver, GDK 2A Incline, is not
      justified. Sri K. Narsaiah is entitled to Grade 'D' post with
      effect from 01.03.1980 and further he is entitled to Grade 'C'
      with effect from 01.03.1987 with all consequential and other
      attendant benefits."

5.    The award passed by the Tribunal reflects that

the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion holding that

the employee-in-question is entitled to Grade 'D' w.e.f.

01.03.1980

and to Grade 'C' w.e.f. 01.03.1987. No

explanation has been offered before this Court also to

arrive at a different conclusion contrary to the

conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal

has arrived at the conclusion based upon the

Memorandum of Promotion Policy as well as the

Memorandum of Settlement entered between the

Management and the Unions.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the

workman was wrongly denied the benefit of Grade 'A',

i.e., Grade 'D' from 01.03.1980 and to Grade 'C' from

01.03.1987, the Tribunal was justified in granting the

relief and the learned Single Judge was also justified in ::4:: HCJ & AKS,J wa_991_2010

dismissing the writ petition preferred by the

Management.

7. In view of the workman-in-question has attained

the age of superannuation long back, this Court does

not find any reason to interfere with the order of the

learned Single Judge.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is

dismissed. No costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

Date : 09.03.2022 Ndr