Telangana HC Sets Aside Award Against IDL Employees

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court set aside a decision of the industrial tribunal that denied reinstatement claims of former employees of IDL Industries Limited and its subsidiary, IDL Rural Development Trust. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka disposed of a batch of writ pleas filed by B. Rama Sarma and 14 others. The dispute dates back to 1972 when the petitioner joined IDL Industries Limited, a company primarily engaged in the manufacture of explosives. Over time, the company diversified into agriculture-related businesses, including a bull mother farm, a liquid nitrogen plant, and cattle rearing. In 1981, the management created IDL Rural Development Trust, transferring several employees under its control. The secretary, acting as a trustee of the newly-formed entity, issued termination notices to the employees in January 2001, stating that the trust had ceased to exist. The petitioner argued that since the trust was an extension of the parent company, the employees should have been reinstated in IDL. Several other employees were reportedly absorbed back, but the petitioners were left in the lurch. Their labour union initially pursued the matter before the industrial tribunal, seeking recognition as employees of IDL Industries. However, the tribunal ruled against them, citing the compromise decree from 1983. The petitioner, not being a party to that decree, later filed another application before the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The tribunal once again rejected the claim, holding that the dispute was barred by the principle of res judicata. The petitioner challenged this arguing that the reliance placed by tribunal on a past compromise decree involving other employees was misplaced. The judge observed that the plea referred to was filed by the workers’ union, whereas the present case was filed by the petitioner in an individual capacity and since they were not a party to the 1983 decree, the principle of res judicata could not be applied against them. The judge further noted that the tribunal failed to examine the validity of the termination itself, making its ruling legally unsustainable. Allowing the petitions, the judge set aside the decision of tribunal and ruled that the petitioners were entitled to seek reinstatement.

HC relief to physically challenged bank employee

The Telangana High Court set aside the punishment of 'dies-non and no salary/remuneration' imposed on a physically challenged employee of Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank. The court ruled that since the service rules of the bank did not prescribe such a punishment, it could not be legally imposed. Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao was dealing with a writ plea filed by A. Rajaram Reddy, who contended that he was dismissed in 2011 over disciplinary charges. His termination was overturned by the High Court, which deemed the punishment excessive. It was the case of the petitioner that he was reinstated as an accountant but deprived of the back wages for the period of dismissal and was compelled to sign an undertaking waiving his salary claim. Counsel for the petitioner, Baglekar Akash Kumar argued that rule 19(ii) of 'The service rules and regulations of the Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Karimnagar' does not provide for imposing of punishment of "dies-non and no salary/ remuneration”. He contended that a perusal of the said rule reveals that the competent authority may impose the following penalties/punishment on employees found guilty of misconduct but not "dies-non and no salary/ remuneration”. The judge referring to rule 19 said "In the above said rule, nothing is mentioned with regard to non-payment of back wages and also taking of any undertaking from the employee. Therefore, in the absence of any provision, the imposition of punishment of 'dies-non and no salary/remuneration' is contrary to the said Rule 19(ii)". Justice Rajeshwar Rao further said that any undertaking or contracts that restrain legal proceedings is invalid in the eyes of law. He observed that “the respondent authorities have violated their own rules; for that, the petitioner cannot be made scapegoat.” The bank contended that the Supreme Court on several occasions had upheld the 'no work- no pay' rule. It argued that the petitioner himself has willingly given the undertaking and could not turn back on his word now. The judge rejected the argument of the bank and directed the bank to pay the petitioner 50 per cent of his back wages within two months.

HC cautions against retrospective GST imposition

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed revenue officials not to implement a retrospective tax imposition by GST authorities. The panel of acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara is dealing with a writ plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), challenging the constitutionality of Section 7(1) (aa) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from January 22, 2024 but given retrospective effect from July 1, 2017. The panel found that a single judge of the Kerala High Court had heard a similar matter, which was pending before a division bench where the vires of the provision was under challenge. It took note of the fact that the facts were similar and that the Kerala wing, akin to the petitioner, had also challenged the provision before the Kerala High Court. Since the protection sought was specifically against the retrospective effect of the tax demand, the panel protected the petitioner to a limited extent while granting time to the respondents to respond to the challenge.

Illegal transportation of

cows alleged in writ petition

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to Shamshabad SHO in a writ plea alleging unauthorised cattle transportation for slaughter. The judge also directed that the seized cattle in connection with an FIR registered at Shamshabad police station, shall not be released until the next hearing. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Gau Gyan Foundation, engaged in cattle welfare and managing goshalas across India. The petitioner is challenging the illegal transportation and slaughter of cattle in violation of the Telangana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation. The petitioner alleged that despite complaints regarding unauthorised cattle transportation for slaughter, police and veterinary authorities failed to take strict action, allowing the accused to obtain health certificates and seek release of the cattle. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the cattle were being transported in violation of multiple laws, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Transport of Animals Rules. The matter was posted for further adjudication.

‘Beneficiary’ alleges bias in

disbursal of dalit bandhu benefits

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court disposed of a plea seeking disbursement of amount under the Dalit Bandhu scheme, directing the district collector of Hanamkonda to consider grievances of the petitioner and take appropriate action. One Eerla Laxmi approached the court challenging the non-disbursement of funds under the scheme, despite being listed as a beneficiary in the official records. She alleged discrimination, stating that while funds were allocated and available, officials selectively disbursed amounts to socially and politically favoured individuals, leaving her without justification. She contended that this violated her rights guaranteed under the constitution and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court took note of the proceedings issued by the collectors in January 2023, which listed the petitioner as a beneficiary for fund allocation. It also considered a letter dated two months back that was addressed to district collectors regarding the release of benefits under the scheme and directed the district collector to take necessary steps.