Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
B. Narasimhulu – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the petitioner's employment and dismissal. (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner's appeal against lack of continuity and back wages. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondent’s defense on procedural grounds. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's analysis of petitioner's past conduct. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's discussion on delay and laches. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. conclusion regarding petitioner's delay. (Para 12) |
| 7. final order and dismissal of the petition. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER:
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Award dated 12.03.2004 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.113 of 2001.
2. Heard Sri G.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor on 20.12.1986 on daily wage basis and subsequently his services were regularized with effect from 15.07.1987. The petitioner claims to have performed his duties diligently for over 17 years, without any adverse remarks until the incident that led to his removal.
(b) On 03.05.1999, while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Conductor
The court reinforced that a history of misconduct and undue delay in challenging an award limits entitlement to relief in service matters, aligning with principles on delay and laches.
The court upheld the dismissal of an employee for failure to issue tickets and misappropriation, affirming the Labour Court's adherence to the due process of law and recognizing limited grounds for j....
Disciplinary actions must consider intent and circumstances surrounding alleged misconduct, ensuring punishment is proportionate to the situation.
The court emphasized that a delay in seeking relief under Article 226 without sufficient explanation is a ground for dismissal, limiting the High Court's re-evaluative powers in disciplinary matters.
The Tribunal must not modify disciplinary actions without considering the delay in seeking redress and the context of previous disciplinary proceedings, adhering to principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
