HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI Between: 1. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Zaheerabad Depot, Medak District' 2. The Divisional lvlanager, A.P.S R.T.C., Sangareddy, N'4edak District' ...PETITIONERS AND 1. A.Rasheed. S/o. Md,lsamuddin R/o H.No 12-8, Allipur, Moosanagr Colony' Zaheerabad. District: l\,4edak 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS WPMP . NO: 31352 OF 2007 Petition under section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to suspend the op"ration of award dated 29.9.2006 in l.D.No.98/2004, on the file of Labour court-ll, Hyderabad, pending disposal of Writ Petition.. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. N. PRAVEEN REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No' 1: SRl. SADU RAJESWARA REoDY counsel for the Respondent No' 2: GP FOR LABOUR WP NO: 3873 OF 2008 Between: PetitionunderArticle22ooftheConStitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to L"r" rny writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of Certiorari calling for the records ielating to the impugned Award dated 29,9-2006 in tD No.98/2004 on the lile oftheLabour-Court-ll'HyderabadandG.o.Rt'No.23g3LabourCourtEmployment iraining and Factories (LAB.l) Department, dated 13 1.1 2006, published on the notice Soard on 27.11.2006 and declaring the same in setting aside the removal order dated 21.1.2004 and directing the petitioners herein lo reinstate the lst respondent hereinintoserviceasillegal'arbitrary,unjustandwithoutjurisdictionand consequently quash the same. A. Rasheed, S/o. Md. lsamuddin, Conductor R/o. H No Allipur, Moosanagar Colony Zaheerabad, District Medak' 12-8, E.No. 1056'13, .PETITIONER WP NO: 24060 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO: 24060 OF 2007 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 3873 OF 2008 I I AND Petition un( circumstances stat issue a writ order calling for the reco published in the G the La bour Court-l is aqainst to the p, full back wages Manager, APSRT treat the involved 1 . The Andhra 'radesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Za reerabad Depot, lvledak District. 2. The Andhra 'radesh State Road Transport, Corporation, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, AF SRTC, Sanga Reddy, Medak Distdcl. 3. The Presidin tOfficer, Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad. 4. The Andhra )radesh State Road Transport, Corporatlon, Rep. by its Depot Manager, At SRTC, Narayanakhed Depot, lvledak District ., RESPONDENTS z 3r Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndra praying that in the ld in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rr direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari ds pertains to the lD No.98/2004 dt.29-9-2006 and the same was lzelte Notification in G.O.Rt.No 2393 dt.13-11-2C06 on the file of Hyderabad and to set aside the portion of the above Award which titioner and consequenlly direct the respondents herein to pay the 'om the date of removal i.e. 21-1-2QO4 passed by the Depot ), Zaheerabad, in his proceedrngs No. 02/9 5(5 ) 120O3-ZHB and period as on duty for all other purposes including continuity of service with all inc ements. Counsel for the P ltitioner:SRl. SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the R:spondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4: SRl. N. PRAVEEN REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC. Counsel for the F rspondent No. 3: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made I re following: HON'I]LF, SRI.II]STICE AI}HI\AND KUNIAR SHAVILI WRIT PETI'[I ON No.24060 of 2007 AIiD WRIT PETITI ON No .3873 of 2008 COMMON ORDE R: Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order as the issue raised in these two writ petitions pertains to the very same award passed by the Labour Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.p.No.2406O of Z0O7 are discussed hereunder: (a) W.P.No.24060 of 2007 is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records related to and connected with the orders dated 29.09.2006 passed in I.D.No.9S of 2004 on the file of the Labour Cout_ll, Hyderabad, and to qr,rash or set aside the same hoiding it as arbitrary and illegaJ. (b) The l'' respondent - u.orkntan rvas initially appointed as a Conductor during 198.1 and his services were regularized during l9g-s. While so, on the allegation that he u,as indulged in cash ancl ticket irregularities while conducting the bus bearing No. Ap l0 Z 6g3g on route Bidar to Hyderabad on 20.02.2003, the disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings and, after proven misconduct in the enquiry, imposed the major penalty of removal from service ylde orders dated 21.01.2004. Thereafter, the workman had preferred an appeal unsuccessfully and later filed ID.No.9S of2004 before the Labour Court_ II, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. Vide olders dated 29.09.2006, the LaboLr Court had panly allowed the I.D It l AKS.] \\ P No.24060 o1200? & w P No 38?l of2008 preferred by dated 2l .01.1 into service the workmar 3. To th benetits, the 4. Heard Corporation, 5. Standl that the La against the charges are the major pr appreciated 6. Cout.l Court has r removal fir levelled aga Courl has g horvever th attendant bt Corporatior of continuit 7. This leamed cot: he workman and rvas pleased to sel. aside the removal order 004 and directed the Cttrporation to rcirlsta(e tlte uorknran vithout back wages and also to treilt the period fl'orn which was out ol service as not on dut\, rvithoLtt u'lges. extent ol denl-ing the back uages and otht'r attendant r,,orkman flled W.P.No.3 873 ol 2008. Sri N. Praveen Reddy, Standing Counsel lor the and Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, counsel for the workman. rg Counsel appearing lor the Corporation had contended ,our Court failed to appreciate that the charges levelled vorkman were proved in the domestic enquiry and, as the reld proved, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed nalty ofremoval from service and the Labour Cottrt has not .ny ofthe contentions raised by the Corporation. el appearing fbr the tvorkman had colltr'll.lcd that the Labour ghtly set aside tire orciers ot' ret.t.tovril. as the penalty oi' m service is shockingll dispropoltiortate to the charges nst the workman. CoLtnsel 1!rther cotttelltled th:it the Labour ven cogent reasons tbr selting aside tl.re ordet ol'retloval, : Labour Court ened in denying back wages and other refits to the workman. 'Iherefore, counsel contended that the be directed to pay back wages and also to extend the benefit , of service and other attendant benefits to the workman' Court, having considered the rival submissions made by rsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the 1\S r rv I \o l.r)6f,,1 ln._ \\ i \. is-r , i-i S Labour Court, in exercise of its pou'el under Section ll-A ol the Industlial Disputcs Acr. has rightll passed the olclers dated 29.09,1006 in I.D.No.98 of 200.1 and also it has given elaborate reasons lor setting aside the orders of renroval and tbr denying back wages to the workman, No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the counsel on eirher side to modify or to set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 29.09.2006 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.98 of 2004. 8. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if,any, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY' SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \tt / SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 2 CCs to Sri. N. Praveen Reddy, SC for TSRTC [OPUC] 2 CCs to Sri. Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Labour ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. PM - NPJ E- \ HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2022 COMMON ORDER WP.No.24060 of 20r 7 & 3873 of 2008 Dismissing the WPs Without co:,ts. .-{'-'=-- (oo ttu "'o.uh /! io \ 10 t'.tAq 2c2 tV ,i\ 67 I I