AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2007 passed in W.P.No.1810 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge.
Heard Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri N.Rajeswar Rao, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, and Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman.
It has been contended by the appellants that the 2nd respondent was employed with them as E.P. Operator and the 2nd respondent has unauthorizedly absented himself and the appellants had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent and after conducting a detailed enquiry, has imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has unsuccessfully preferred appeal and later challenged the order of dismissal before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was numbered as Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D.No.119 of 2001.
Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the Industrial Tribunal, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants, had passed the award in favour of the 2nd respondent by modifying the punishment of dismissal to that of reinstatement of the 2nd respondent whenever vacancy is there either at Medipally or anywhere else on the minimum pay scale as a fresh candidate. However, the Industrial Tribunal has not granted any back wages or seniority in service.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the appellants had preferred W.P.No.1810 of 2004 and the learned Single Judge, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants, had dismissed the writ petition confirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the 2nd respondent is a habitual absentee and the Industrial Tribunal has passed the award in favour of the 2nd respondent without appreciating the fact that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were proved in the domestic enquiry and based upon the proven misconduct in the domestic enquiry only, the disciplinary authority had imposed a major penalty of dismissal on 22.01.2001. The Industrial Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the appellants had rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal against the 2nd respondent for the proven misconduct in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders passed in favour of the 2nd respondent by the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent had contended that the disciplinary authority had failed to appreciate the Medical Certificate produced by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was ill and he could not attend the duties for the factors beyond his control. The Industrial Tribunal had rightly passed an award in favour of the 2nd respondent in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a specific finding that at the time of dismissal from service, the 2nd respondent has already put in ten years of service. This aspect was considered by both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge and passed orders in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, no interference is called for and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Industrial Tribunal have rightly passed orders in favour of the 2nd respondent, as the Industrial Tribunal has exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Act and modified the punishment of dismissal to that of reinstatement as a fresh candidate without any back wages and continuity of service. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has assigned cogent reasons while passing the orders in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.