IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, JJ.
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Medak - Appellant
Versus
P. Yadagir and another - Respondents
W.A. No.1398 OF 2016
Decided on : 06-03-2024
Execution - Labour Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - The court emphasized that an executing court cannot exceed the decree in execution proceedings and that the proper remedy for the workman was to file an application under Section 33-C(2) for determining the amount due.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent, a Cleaner at APSRTC, was removed from service after a domestic enquiry. He challenged the removal, which was set aside, leading to reinstatement without back wages. He later sought back wages through an execution petition, which was upheld by the Labour Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief not specified in the original order. The 1st respondent should have filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to determine the amount payable.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court had the authority to grant back wages and other benefits in the execution petition, and whether the 1st respondent should have filed an application under Section 33-C(2) instead.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree and that the proper procedure for claiming monetary benefits was through Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Result: The Writ Appeal is allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28690 of 2016.
2. Heard Sri A. Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the appellant and Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-workman.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(1) The 1st respondent was working as a Cleaner in APSRTC, Medak. While so, on 06.08.1981, he was directed to drive a bus bearing No.AAZ-1560 to attend the relief work of another bus which failed en-route. The 1st respondent drove the bus bearing No.AAZ-1560 to the outer gate, where the Security Guard found five pipes meant for supporting the roof, kept in the Chassis of the bus. The Security Guard reported the matter to the head Security Guard, and consequently, a report was prepared and forwarded to the Depot Manager for necessary action. Based on the said report, a charge sheet was issued to the 1st respondent. A domestic enquiry was conducted and basing on the report, the 1st respondent was removed from service.
(2) Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed I.D.No.93 of 1992 (Old No.764 of 1987), and the same was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.1993 holding that the charge levelled against the 1st respondent was not proved and accordingly, the order of removal was set aside. Consequently, the appellant was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent into service without a break in service, but without back wages. Challenging the denial of back wages, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.18518 of 1995. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition vide order dated 19.09.2006 by observing that the Labour Court failed to give any reasons for denying the 1st respondent’s back wages when he was cleared from the alleged delinquency. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants therein preferred W.A.No.22 of 2007 before the Division Bench of this Court, which upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 18.12.2014.
(3) Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.14 of 2006 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, seeking payment of an amount of Rs.2,01,737.30ps., alleging that as per Regulation 21(2)(a) and (c) of the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967, whenever an employee is fully exonerated, the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been removed; and the period of absence from duty shall, for all purposes, be treated as a period spent on duty, and accordingly sought for payment of the enhanced wages consequent to revision of pay scales.
(4) The Labour Court vide order dated 15.06.2016 allowed the E.P. with the following observations:
In view of the above discussion, the respondent has to pay an amount of Rs.2,01,737.30 ps., out of which the respondent has to deposit an amount of Rs.31,556/- to the P.F. trust towards employee and employer contributions. The respondent has not paid the said amount therefore; the petitioner is entitled to attach the property as referred in the schedule.
In the result, the petitioner is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,01,737.30 ps., out of which respondent has to contribute Rs.31,556/- towards P.F. Account for the contribution of employee and employer and the remaining amount of Rs.1,70,181.30 ps., has to be paid to the pe
An executing court cannot grant relief beyond the decree; proper claims for monetary benefits must be made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for employees to pursue the appropriate legal remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for determining the am....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of pursuing the appropriate legal remedy, Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for determining the amount payabl....
A workman claiming back wages under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act must provide evidence of entitlement to the claimed benefits, and the absence of such evidence can lead to dismissa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.