Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 662
2010 (6) ALD 127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
T. MEENA KUMARI, B. CHANDRA KUMAR
The General Manager Telecom Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Eluru and another ..… Petitioners
Vs.
K. Sudarshana Rao and another …Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2339 of 2003
Decided On : 28-07-2010
for the Petitioners: Sri R.S. Murthy
for the Respondent No.1: Sri Y.V. Raviprasad
for the Respondent No.2: GP for Labour
Headnote:
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 2-A(2) and 2(k) - Industrial dispute – Workmen - Retrenchment and to reinstate - Termination of services – Challenged – Misconduct - Back wages and attendant benefits - Seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits - Labour Court passed the impugned award directing petitioners herein, to take back first respondent as temporary casual labourer without back wages and to consider his case if permanent vacancy arises considering his seniority from the date of his original appointment - Petitioner was employed as casual Mazdoor from 14.11.1980 to 13.06.1981 on daily wage basis. He was paid wages known as ACG-17 payment vouchers. From 21.06.1981 to 07.10.1981 he was employed showing his name on muster rolls - By letter he was selected as Casual Mazdoor on temporary basis and his name was shown in muster rolls except for the period from 01.06.1982 to 31.08.1982 i.e., for 69 days for which he was paid wages on ACG-17 vouchers - However, his name was shown in the muster rolls from 01.09.1982 to 17.03.1990 without break. He was granted temporary status with effect from 01.10.1989 - Held, Case of a workman who worked for more than 10 years prior to 17.03.1990 - Admittedly services of all the casual workman who were engaged by petitioner have been regularized as per scheme - In view of same, official memorandum issued after a period of decade, in our considered view, may not be applicable to the facts of present case - Anyhow, when there is violation of principles of natural justice and when no enquiry was conducted and the services of the workman were terminated illegally without following procedure, workman is entitled for reinstatement and Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in the award passed by Labour Court - Award of Tribunal ordering the respondents/BSNL to take back the petitioner/workman into organization as temporary casual labour stands modified to the extent that the petitioner/workman shall be given appointment in any suitable post, to which he is entitled to, but however, without any back wages and thus the award of the Labour Court stands confirmed except to the extent of above modification - Petition is disposed of.
B. Chandra Kumar
1. The first respondent herein is the workman who approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, (for short ‘Labour Court’) and filed I.D. No. 20 of 2001 challenging his termination and seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits. The Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 10.01.2002, directing the petitioners herein, to take back the first respondent as temporary casual labourer without back wages and to consider his case if permanent vacancy arises considering his seniority from the date of his original appointment. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed by the General Manager, Telecom, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Eluru, and the Sub-Divisional Officer Phones, Eluru.
2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Labour Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioner/workman filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging his retrenchment and to reinstate him with back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is as follows.
4. The petitioner was employed as casual Mazdoor from 14.11.1980 to 13.06.1981 on daily wage basis. He was paid wages known as ACG-17 payment vouchers. From 21.06.1981 to 07.10.1981 he was employed showing his name on muster rolls. By letter in Ex.W1 dated 05.10.1981 he was selected as Casual Mazdoor on temporary basis and his name was shown in muster rolls except for the period from 01.06.1982 to 31.08.1982 i.e., for 69 days for which he was paid wages on ACG-17 vouchers. However, his name was shown in the muster rolls from 01.09.1982 to 17.03.1990 without break. He was granted temporary status with effect from 01.10.1989.
5. The petitioner was suffering from Hypertension, partial paralysis and mental disturbances and he could not attend his duties from 18.03.1990 to 31.12.1994. However, by letter Ex.W.7 dated 24.12.1990, the petitioner was informed that since he did not turn up for work without any sort of permission from 18.03.1990 onwards till 24.12.1990 his services were dispensed with, with effect from 24.01.1991.
6. The further case of the petitioner is that the services of a temporary status mazdoor cannot be terminated without specifying his misconduct, if any, and without giving him reasonable opportunity to defend himself on the allegations made against him. The further case of the petitioner is that since he was suffering from ill-health from 18.03.1990 to 31.12.1994, he could not give his reply to the said notice immediately and that he reported to duty only on 01.01.1995 along with medical certificate issued by Dr. S.Suryanarayana of Swati Clinic. However, his request was rejected on 05.01.1995. Then he submitted a written representation on 10.01.1995 to the Telecom District Manager, now designated as General Manager, but his application was returned directing him to submit the same through SDOP, Eluru. Then the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1175 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the letter dated 24.12.1990 and seeking reinstatement. However, the said O.A was disposed of on the representation of the petitioner that he would like to make representation to the respondents, however with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Then the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 31.07.2000, but his request was rejected stating that his services were already terminated basing on misconduct. Then the petitioner approached the Labour Court and filed I.D. No. 20 of 2001 challenging the action of the respondents in terminating his services.
7. The respondents filed a counter contending, inter alia, that a reference under Section 10 of the Act is contemplated for adjudication of disputes by the Labour Court in respect of the Industries cover
