Labour Court Cannot Pass Award Ignoring Law: HC

Hyderabad:Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court set aside an award of the Labour Court of reinstatement, reiterating that relief, even under beneficial legislation cannot be granted by ignoring rules. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by the superintending engineer challenging an award passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in an industrial dispute. The dispute arose from the termination of B. Srinivas, a record assistant who remained absent from duty from April 2002 without intimation. A departmental inquiry found the charge proved and his termination was ordered in January 2006. After more than eight years, the employee raised an industrial dispute, upon which the Labour Court directed reinstatement without back wages, continuity of service or attendant benefits. The judge referred to Regulation 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations, which provides that an employee remaining unauthorisedly absent for one year shall be deemed to have resigned from service. The action of the employer, the judge found, was sound in law. The court found that the Labour Court granted relief under beneficial legislation without examining these rules and without any supporting material such as medical records. It held that reinstatement was not warranted in view of the delay and absence of evidence. At the same time, taking note that the employee rendered some service, the judge directed the organisation of the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the employee within six months.

Writ on SC/ST FMGE cut-off in HC

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the uniform cut-off in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) and failure of authorities to provide differential qualifying standards for SC/ST and women candidates. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Keeni Shivani challenging the failure to prescribe relaxed or differential qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates and women candidates as arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the existing criteria adversely affect equality in access to professional opportunities, particularly for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds. The plea also sought a direction to declare the petitioner as “passed” in the FMGE Screening Test, June 2025 session, by relaxing the minimum qualifying marks, if necessary. Additionally, it called upon the authorities to frame a policy prescribing separate qualifying standards for SC/ST candidates and women candidates in the examination. The judge directed the respondents to obtain instructions in the matter and posted the case for further hearing