Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Jeedimetla ... vs Sri.K.Janannath Reddy K.J.Reddy, ... on 21 January, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.18191 of 2005
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-
"...... to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for setting aside the impugned Award dt.25.06.2004 in I.D.No.156/2001 of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, passed directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service with 75% back wages failing which the respondent be entitled for interest at 12% per annum till realization ........".
Heard Sri N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the 1st respondent-workman while working as a Conductor with the petitioner's Corporation had indulged in cash and ticket irregularities and the said conduct of the 1st respondent-workman was construed as a misconduct and the disciplinary authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent and after conducting regular enquiry, for the proven misconduct, had imposed a major penalty of removal against the 1st respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent-workman has unsuccessfully preferred appeal and revision and later challenged the order of removal before the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.156 of 2001 and the Labour Court without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner had allowed the I.D. preferred by the 1st respondent-workman vide order dated 25.06.2004 by setting aside the order of removal and directed that the 1st respondent-workman 2 be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without attendant benefits. However, granted 75% of the back wages along with interest @ 12% per annum.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that the 1st respondent-workman was reinstated into service and he had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that the only issue is with regard to payment of back wages, which the Labour Court had erroneously awarded in favour of the 1st respondent-workman and therefore, atleast to that extent, the award passed by the Labour Court be set aside.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the Labour Court had rightly passed order in favour of the 1st respondent-workman and had rightly awarded back wages to the extent of 75%. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the Labour Court had rightly passed order in favour of the 1st respondent-workman in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act. However, the Labour Court had erred in awarding interest at 12% per annum on the back wages and therefore, the award to the extent of granting interest @ 12% per annum is set aside and the rest of the award passed by the Labour Court is confirmed. This order is passed in order to give quietus to this long pending case and more 3 over, the 1st respondent-workman had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012.
With the above observations, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 21.01.2022 Prv