[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
B. Anil Kumar vs Fourth Estate Limited on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 431 of 2026
DATED : 15.04.2026
Between:
B. Anil Kumar
... Appellant
AND
Fourth Estate Limited
Printers of The Times of India Group of Publications
The Times of India press
IDA Nacharam and another
... Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Sri S. Ravindranath, learned counsel appears for appellant.
Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel represents
Sri G.S. Prasen, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Smt. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II
appears for respondent No.2.
2. The learned Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, vide award dated
15.12.2022 in I.D.No.161 of 2018, set aside the order dated 18.12.2017
passed by respondent No.1 employer terminating the services of the
appellant workman, with a direction upon respondent No.1 employer to
reinstate the appellant workman into service. The learned Labour Court
further held that the appellant workman is not entitled to any back wages
and attendant benefits. The award shall come into force under Section
2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') after 30
days of its publication.
3. In the award dated 15.12.2022, certain observations were made
by the learned Labour Court at paras 10 and 11 which were made
subject matter of Writ Petition No.27910 of 2023 by respondent No.1
employer. Respondent No.1 employer did not question the direction to
reinstate the appellant workman.
4. In pursuance of the implementation of the award dated
15.12.2022, respondent No.1 employer addressed a letter dated
16.03.2023 to the appellant workman. The said letter reads as under:
"FOURTH
ESTATE
LIMITED
Regd Post with acknowledgment due/courier
16/03/2023
To
Mr. B Anil Kumar,
S/o B Mogilaiah
5-3/24/6, Street No-4
Sri Sai Nagar Colony, Boduppal,
Hyderabad
Sub: Award passed by the Hon'ble Labour court in ID No.
159/2018 dated 15/12/2022, which was published by Government
of Telangana
Vide G.O. RT No. 65 dated 03/02/2023.
Dear B Anil Kumar,
(Emp No:-610080)
1. This is to inform you that your services are transferred to
Bommasandra, Bangalore piani vide transfer order dated
30/11/2014 But however, you have chosen not to report to the
duty despite giving ample opportunities. Therefore, your services
3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
were terminated vide order dated 18/12/2017 as per the terms of
your appointment letter.
2. However, you have challenged the said termination before the
Hon'ble Labour Court -1, Hyderabad and after the enquiry the
Hon'ble Court has partly allowed the case filed by you and
accordingly directed the management to reinstate you into the
services without any back wages and without any attendant,
benefits.
3. In due obedience and in compliance of the said award you are
hereby directed to report to duty to Mr. Rajendran NA at M/s.
Fourth Estate Ltd, Bommasandra, Bangalore Plant on or before
20/03/2023.
4. All the terms and conditions of your earlier appointment letter
remain unaltered.
5. You will be paid Traveling Allowance to join duty at Bangalore
as per the rules of the company.
For FOURTH ESTATE LTD
Alan Carvalho
Vice President"
5. The appellant workman preferred Writ Petition No.8467 of 2023
to suspend the operation of the order of transfer dated 16.03.2023 by
allowing him to work at Hyderabad as Senior Officer Production with
respondent No.1 employer. By order dated 28.03.2023, the learned writ
Court granted interim suspension of the order of transfer dated
16.03.2023. The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the workman as
the learned writ Court has not passed any order on the application for
Section 17B wages, in Writ Petition No.27910 of 2023 and only posted
the case for final hearing after four (4) weeks. The said Writ Petition
was directed to be listed on 13.04.2026. On 13.04.2026, the matter could
not be finally heard.
4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
6. On the part of the appellant workman, it is contended that the
interim order of suspension is only on the order of transfer. Therefore,
since the appellant is effectively out of service, he is entitled to last
drawn wages as per Section 17B of the Act which the learned writ Court
did not consider and allow.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 employer submits
that respondent No.1 employer has not questioned the order of
reinstatement and in fact given effect to the award passed by the Labour
Court vide letter dated 16.03.2023 which the workman himself got
stayed by the learned writ Court on 28.03.2023 in Writ Petition No.8467
of 2023. Therefore, if the reinstatement was not under challenge and the
employer has already issued orders for reinstatement, the question of
paying last drawn wages under Section 17B of the Act would not arise
moreover when the appellant himself got a stay on the order of transfer.
The learned writ Court had also taken note of the application under
Section 17B of the Act in the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant
workman.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The facts noted above are rather peculiar and unique. Here, the
employer has not made any challenge to the order of the reinstatement.
The appellant workman has got interim suspension of the order of
transfer dated 16.03.2023 whereby the appellant workman was asked to
report to duty at respondent No.1, Bommasandra, Bangalore Plant,
5 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
apparently reinstating him into service. Wages under Section 17B of the
Act are granted in case there is a stay of reinstatement in the appeal or
writ proceedings at the behest of the employer. The facts in the present
case are contrary. In the circumstances, the learned writ Court could not
have directed payment of last drawn wages when the employee has
himself obtained an interim suspension of the order of transfer dated
16.03.2023 whereby he was in effect reinstated in compliance of the
award and asked to report to duty at a place in Bangalore. In such
circumstances, it would be proper that the Writ Petition be decided
expeditiously. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the
order under appeal.
The instant Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
_____________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
15th APRIL, 2026.
kvni
