Y JAYARAMANNA Vs. CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
V.Sivaraman Nair, J. -
(1.)These four Writ Appeals arise out of the common judgment in Writ
Petition Nos.9529, 9530, 9531 and 9532 of 1984. Those Writ Petitions were filed
by the Cement Corporation of India challenging the award of the Labour Court
in I.D.Nos.9, 11, 12 and 13 of 1982. The four appellants, who were workmen of
the Corporation, had challenged the refusal of employment to them with effect
from 17-10-1979 as pump operators in the factory of the Corporation at
Yerraguntla. Admittedly the appellants were engaged as casual workmen,
though the work of pump operators was of a permanent and perennial nature.
After refusal of employment to the appellants, admittedly again, other workmen
had been engaged to discharge the same functions.
(2.)It appears that the denial of employment was as a consequence of some
alleged misconduct on the part of the workmen.
(3.)On 17-10-1979 the General Manager of the Corporation complained to the
Police that these four appellants had detained a school bus belonging to the
Corporation and have committed some mischief. On the same, the Police
arrested them. The appellants got themselves enlarged on bail on the very next
day. And when they reported for duty, they were informed that they would not
be admitted to duty before completion of the criminal proceedings in C.CNo.62/
79 which were pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram.
On 22-4-1980, the Magistrate Court acquitted the appellants. They requested
for reinstatement, but were denied employment. It is at that stage that the
appellants raised industrial disputes-I.D.Nos.9, 11, 12 and 13 of 1982 before the
Labour Court. They made representations before the officers of the Central and
State Labour Departments prior thereto. The management participated in the
deliberations at the instance of the officers of the Central and State Labour
Departments without raising any objection to the competency of the Labour
Department of the State to conciliate in the dispute nor was any objection taken
before the Labour Court about the competency of the Labour Court to consider
the question of propriety of punishment to the appellants.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.