Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1153 (AP)

Satha Banaiah v. Colliery Manager

2014-09-12

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT L.N. Reddy, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 04-12-2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 19957 of 2005. The facts, in brief, are as under: The appellant joined the service of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, the respondents herein as Badili Filler on 09-08-1976, and later on, he was designated as Tyndal. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 13-03-2003, alleging that he remained absent unauthorisedly for 213 days. The appellant pleaded the grounds of ill-health. The explanation was found not satisfactory and departmental enquiry was conducted. The charge was held proved, and taking the report of the enquiry officer into account, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 11-10-2003, removing the appellant from service. 2. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the appellant filed I.D. No. 62 of 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). He pleaded that the duties entrusted to him were onerous, and on account of the same, he suffered ill-health and that the order of removal is contrary to law. The I.D., was opposed by the respondents. Through its award dated 12-04-2005, the Labour Court partly allowed the I.D. The order of removal was set aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Tyndal as a fresh candidate, on production of physical fitness certificate, issued by a Medical Board. It was also directed that he shall be kept under observation for a period of one year and if he remains absent, during that period, it shall be open to, the respondents to take action. 3. The respondents filed W.P. No. 19957 of 2005, challenging the award. The learned single Judge has set aside the award on the ground that there is no dispute about the unauthorized absence of the appellant for 213 days, and that the Labour Court was not justified in granting the relief. Hence, the writ appeal. 4. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. The only ground on which the appellant was removed from service was that he remained absent for 213 days. The appellant also did not dispute the factum of his remaining absent. Hence, the writ appeal. 4. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. The only ground on which the appellant was removed from service was that he remained absent for 213 days. The appellant also did not dispute the factum of his remaining absent. However, he stated that the absence was on account of his illness, referable to the discharge of duties. 6. Before the Labour Court, he filed Exs.W-1 to W-30, which are in relation to the treatment undergone by him during that period. Ex. W. 31 is the order, dismissing the appellant from service. On behalf of the Management, Exs. M-1 to M-11 were filed and they are about the disciplinary proceedings. The Labour Court took into account, the medical reports and found that the absence of the appellant was not without any basis. All the same, only a limited relief was granted, which has the effect of wiping away the past service of the appellant, spread over about 30 years. This is not a case where the Labour Court has agreed with the findings and granted relief, in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act. The relief was granted on the basis of the findings recorded by it. 7. For all practical purposes, the learned single Judge has exercised powers under Section 11-A of the Act, but in a reverse direction. Assuming that the absence of the appellant for 213 days was without any justification, the same should not have invited the punishment of removal. The reason is that the appellant rendered service from 1976 onwards, without any blemish, and all through he had to perform very difficult and arduous duties in the underground mines. As a matter of fact, the illness, which occurred to him, in the year 2004, can be traced to such duties. Elaborate medical record was placed before the Labour Court. Strictly speaking, the grievance against the award, if at all, ought to have been for the appellant, since his past service of about 30 years was virtually denied to him. The respondents were not satisfied even with that. A writ petition can not be treated as an appeal against an award passed under the Act. Strictly speaking, the grievance against the award, if at all, ought to have been for the appellant, since his past service of about 30 years was virtually denied to him. The respondents were not satisfied even with that. A writ petition can not be treated as an appeal against an award passed under the Act. It is only when the award is passed in patent" violation of the provisions of the Act, that a possibility to interfere with the same may exist. When the relief granted by the Labour Court can be sustained even if the charges are held proved, there is no way that the award could have been set aside. 8. We therefore allow the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge. The Labour Court has incorporated a warning as to unauthorized absence. We reiterate the same. 9. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.