Telangana HC: Bureaucratic Limits Can’t Override Workers’ Rights

Hyderabad: Justice Nanda of Telangana High Court ruled that bureaucratic limitations cannot trump legitimate rights of workmen. She consequently directed the state government to consider for regularisation the case of a full-time contingent employee in a primary school in Adilabad district and required the petitioner to put forth his claim for regularisation and also the claim of the petitioner to treat his temporary service in the last-grade post as a contingent worker as regular service for all purposes, by granting last-grade pay with periodical increments, as revised from time to time, from the date of his appointment, along with all consequential benefits.

The parameters by which such representation would consider possibly were laid down in 30-page judgment within the court and their representation to be considered within a period of four weeks. The judge was dealing with a writ petition, filed by D. Ganapati complaining that he was engaged in 1991. He contended that he was not paid the legitimate living wages of a full-time worker from 1991. He also sought wages under Minimum Wages Act for 30 years. It was the case of the department that the grievance of the petitioner was never addressed to the proper authority and therefore no mandamus can be issued. Justice Nanda detailed various pronouncements of the apex court on temporary engagements and disengagements which were found by the judge.

The judge said that the employer's discontinuation of the Appellant workman stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, the bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. In the present case Justice Nanda said that the respondents failed to discharge their duty in examining the request of the petitioner for regularisation of petitioner's services who is working as full-time contingent worker and further to consider his request to treat the temporary service of the petitioner in the last grade post of full-time contingent worker as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, since the petitioner had not put forth his claim before the authorities, who were further directed to positively consider his claim for regularisation in terms of multiple judgments which point in his favour.

HC: Lok Adalat award binding

Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court held that an award passed by a Lok Adalat is binding on both parties and can be challenged in a writ petition only on very limited grounds. The judge observed that an employee is entitled to benefits lawfully accruing during regular, continuous, and unbroken service or employment, whether financial and non-financial, such as increments, allowances, promotions, seniority-based advancements, pay scale, leave, gratuity, pension, pensionary benefits, and other retirement-related dues.

However, where the terms of a Lok Adalat award specifically provide for continuity of service without back wages and attendant benefits, such conditions are binding on the parties. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) concerning A. Venka Raga Rao, a former conductor who was removed from service for involvement in serious ticket irregularities.

The employee had challenged his removal, and the matter was ultimately referred to a Lok Adalat, which ordered his reinstatement without continuity of service, attendant benefits, and back wages. The employee, thereafter, sought continuity of service and seniority in the post of conductor from the date of his initial appointment, promotion to the post of junior assistant on par with his batch-mates, counting of seniority from the initial date of appointment, and grant of consequential benefits. The Corporation, however, pointed out that the Lok Adalat award had clearly recorded continuity of service without any back wages or attendant benefits. It was further submitted that protection of seniority being an attendant benefit, the petitioner was not entitled to promotion on par with his batch-mates.

Upon a detailed consideration of the law on the subject and the relevant circulars, Justice Anil Kumar rejected the plea of the petitioner as devoid of merit. The Court held that granting the relief sought would amount to re-writing the terms of the Lok Adalat settlement, which is impermissible in law. The Court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to any attendant benefits as prayed for. However, the Court directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of the Lok Adalat award and in accordance with the observations made in the judgment, and to issue appropriate proceedings within a period of two months.

HC: Dismissal forfeits pension rights

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court ruled that the spouse of an employee dismissed from service is not entitled to retirement benefits. The judge dismissed a writ plea filed by A. Kamala Devi, a senior citizen seeking pension and other retirement benefits relating to her deceased husband, who was dismissed from government service following a criminal conviction. The petitioner sought directions to the department of technical education to release pension, gratuity, and provident fund benefits relating to her late husband, A.V. Ranga Rao, a former employee of the department. The judge noted that Ranga Rao was placed under suspension in 1978 over allegations of theft and was later convicted by a criminal court in 1991.

Though disciplinary proceedings were not concluded during his lifetime, the department issued a dismissal order in 2018 with retrospective effect from the date of conviction. Observing that dismissal from service entails forfeiture of past service, the judge held that neither the employee nor his legal heirs are entitled to pensionary or retirement benefits. As the petitioner did not challenge the dismissal order itself, the judge declined to grant relief and dismissed the writ plea.