IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2739 of 2003 Between:
The Management of Domagk Pharmaceuticals Rep.by its Managing Partner Y.Guravaiah Kothapet, Guntur . PETITIONER And Ambati Venkataramana Mohan Raju and 2 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2739 of 2003
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the award of the Labour Court, Guntur passed in I.D.No.252/1996 dated 22.11.2001 and to pass necessary orders.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
The brief facts relevant for disposing of the writ petition may be stated as follows:
The 1st respondent was appointed as Machinery Operator in the petitioner Company on 23.04.1994. While the 1st respondent was working in the company, show cause notices dated 01.03.1996 and 02.03.1996 were issued to him seeking his explanation for his unauthorized absence. Thereafter, another show cause notice dated 04.04.1996 was issued to the 1st respondent stating that he should behave decently towards his superiors and not to abuse his seniors. The said notice was also received but the 1st respondent did not respond. Under these circumstances, the petitioner company issued proceedings dated 30.08.1996 terminating the services of the 1st respondent. Against the said termination order, the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.252/1996 before the Labour Court, Guntur under Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Presiding officer of the Labour Court after making an enquiry into the dispute passed an award holding that the termination order passed by the petitioner company is not valid and consequently set aside the said termination order and ordered reinstatement of the 1st respondent with full back wages and continuity of service.
The basis for passing of the award according to the learned Tribunal seems to be that the termination order passed by the petitioner company is not valid because no domestic enquiry was conducted against the 1st respondent. Challenging the said award, the petitioner company filed the present writ petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the 1st respondent did not respond to three show cause notices issued by the petitioner company, it is deemed that he admitted the allegations made in the show cause notices and therefore, the termination is valid and no domestic enquiry need be conducted against the 1st respondent.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that as the 1st respondent was agitating for payment of minimum wages and other statutory benefits and as he joined the trade union which was agitating for the welfare of the workmen, the petitioner company got the services of the 1st respondent terminated and the order of termination which was passed without initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent is not valid and has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal below.
The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter contending inter alia that in response to the show cause notices issued to him he made oral representations but the said fact was suppressed by the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner unnecessarily dragged on the industrial dispute raised by him by taking several adjournments and it took 5 years time for disposal of the said dispute. He submitted that even while the industrial dispute was pending, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court contending that an interlocutory application filed by it seeking appointment of an Advocate commissioner for recording evidence was dismissed and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. Ultimately, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal below.
Nextly, it is submitted by the 1st respondent that as he raised an industrial dispute, the petitioner took a false plea to the effect that as it incurred losses it stopped doing business and leased out the premises to the 2nd respondent, which according to the 1st respondent was only to evade the legal obligation to reinstate him into service.
The point therefore arises in the present writ petition is whether in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court can interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal below.
Point:
Obviously, only show cause notices were served on the 1st respondent. Even though the 1st respondent failed to respond to the show cause notices, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to initiate domestic enquiry against him by framing appropriate charges. Failure on the part of the 1st respondent to show cause notices issued by the petitioner does not amount to admission by him of the charges made against him in the show cause notices. The 1st respondent who is a workman cannot be terminated from service in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the instant case no charge sheet was served on the 1st respondent and no enquiry was conducted. The Tribunal below rightly held that the order of termination is not valid. The award passed by the Tribunal below does not suffer from any procedural irregularity and is not perverse. This Court therefore will not interfere with the said award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 10.06.2014 Dsr