Telangana High Court
Municipal Commissioner, Paloncha ... vs K.Venkateshwarlu on 25 February, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
W.A.No.927 of 2007
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No.19404 of 1998 dt.01-08-2007.
2. Heard Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-workman.
3. It has been contended by the appellant- Municipality that the 1st respondent-workman was initially appointed as Sweeper in the appellant's office. He was working as NMR Sweeper and his services were terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent-workman had filed I.D.No153 of 1995 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act, 1947') before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. It was further contended by the appellant that the 1st respondent-workman was initially appointed as NMR Sweeper on 20-01-1990 and services of the 1st 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.927 of 2007 respondent-workman were terminated vide orders dt.26- 12-1992 as there was no work with the appellant. But the 1st respondent-workman could not get any relief before the Tribunal as the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim made by the 1st respondent-workman. However, the 1st respondent-workman has challenged the award of the Tribunal by filing the present Writ Petition and this Court has erroneously allowed the Writ Petition vide orders dt.01- 08-2007 directing the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman with continuity of service and full back-wages without appreciating the fact that there was no work for the 1st respondent-workman in the office of the appellant-Municipality. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant had contended that appropriate orders be passed by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent- workman has contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the case of the 1st respondent-workman and gave a specific finding that the 1st respondent- workman has completed 240 days of service with the 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.927 of 2007 appellant and without assigning any reasons, the appellant had terminated the 1st respondent-workman which is contrary to Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 and also amounts to retrenchment under Section 20-O of the Act, 1947 and the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the 1st respondent-workman and in pursuance to the orders of the learned Single Judge, the 1st respondent-workman was reinstated into service and in view of the fact that the 1st respondent-workman was reinstated into service, no further orders need to be passed in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the 1st respondent-workman with the specific finding that the 1st respondent-workman has completed 240 days of service and the appellant has erroneously terminated the services of the 1st respondent- workman which is contrary to Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.927 of 2007 the order of the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has assigned cogent reasons while allowing the Writ Petition.
6. Therefore the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 25.02.2022 Kvr