TO PETITION IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, SHIVAM
ROAD VIDYANAGAR HYDERABAD – 500 004, ANDHRA PRADESH INDIA.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Ms Kothakota Ashalata Prabhakar D/o Mr K. Prabhakar, aged 49 years r/o G2 Palmal Court Apts 10-3-
7 East Maredpally Secunderabad-26, Mobile No:8886512534/09246220209
1) The Assistant General Manager, LCPC, State Bank Of Hyderabad, First Floor, Plot No:75 & 76
ENR Complex, Main Road, Post Hydershah Kote (Suncity Busstop) Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-
91... Respondent No:1
2) The Deputy General Manager, State Bank Of Hyderabad, BPR, First Floor, Above Dispensary,
H.O. Premises, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-500 001......Respondent No:2
3) The General Manager, ( Hyderabad Network), Third Floor, Prajasakti Complex Plot No:21/1,
No:1-8-664, Nr RTC Mandapam, Hyderabad-20....Respondent No:3
The Honourable Regional Labour Commissioner, Labour Tribunal, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad, placeth the
humble petition of the Petitioner as aforesaid.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
As under Chapter I of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 2(bb), the State Bank Of Hyderabad, a
susbsidiary of the State Bank Of India falls under the ambit of the said Act.
The Petitioner had joined the State Bank Of Hyderabad Icrisat Branch Patancheru on 30th September
1986 as typist cum clerk. Thereafter she was redesignated as Data Entry Computer Operator and
transferred to Ramachandrapuram Branch on 9th May 1995. The Petitioner victimised under the class
discrimination and transferred to Zaheerabad Branch on 10th November 2000. She was harassed and
unlawfully restrained from discharging her duties by the Bank Official Sri Krishnamurthy. However,
after Sri Subhash Kulkarni, Branch Manager reported she was placed with a proposition to submit
leave letters for a transfer order to Habsiguda Branch. She agreed to the condition and submitted leave
letters though she was forced to stay away from work by Sri Krishnamurthy. In this aspect she had
corresponded several representations to the Higher Authorities and the AIBEA (Award Staff
Association), but to no avail.
On 3rd September, 2002 the Petitioner was transferred to Habsiguda Branch. Again on 10th January
2006, the Petitioner was unlawfully restrained by the Assistant General Manager Sri Y Ranganathan
and the Accountant Sri S Pasupathi, who all were unempowered to do so. Though she had complained
to the Higher Authorities and the AIBEA in her letters duly acknowledged, she was deprived of her
livelihood until the Mandal Revenue Official based on her complaint had intervened. On 11th
September 2006, she was transferred to Inspection Department H.o. Gunfoundry. The Petitioner as had
been placed under suspension from 26th October 2010 as per lr.no:F/OAD/1854 dated 26/10/2010. The
alleged charges do not fall under the ambit of gross misconduct in relation to its context and thereby,
the Petitioner did not deserve to be suspended on the basis of flimsy charges as charge sheeted in the
letter no:F/DP/OAD/2060 dated 16th December, 2010. as per letter no: F/OAD/832 dated 02/09/2011, a
revocation of suspension was issued by the respondent No:2 and the same received by the Petitioner on
03/09/2011 and she immediately reported at the stated Personnel Department, Head Office,
Gunfoundry for further orders. As per Transfer Order No:Per/Gr.VII/19 dated 13/09/2011, the
Petitioner was duly transferred to the Liability Central Processing Center, Hyderabad-500040, with
immediate effect. The Petitioner suffered huge monetary loss based on the punishment order
F/OAD/833 dated 02/09/2013 imposed upon her by the Chief Manager Office Administration
Department, H.O. Presently, the Petitioner is restrained from discharging her duties by the Respondent
No:1 who has served dismissal letter F/2/108/30 dated 02/12/2013.
PRESENT / FACTS OF THE CASE :
A Disciplinary Case vide lr.no:F/108/3 dated 08/05/2013, was concocted and cooked up by the
Respondent No:1 and others at the LCPC Department of the SBH. Citing medical reasons the Petitioner
has requested non participation in the DP case enquiry conducted in the letter dated 26/6/2013 along
with a Medical Certificate. The same acknowledged by the Enquiry Officer. The Vice President of the
Association represented the Petitioner.
Later the Petitioner had orally informed the Respondent No:3 and requested the withdrawal of the DP
case framed against her. On 29th November, the Petitioner applied for Festival Advance, which was
wilfully set aside with malafide intentions and the Respondent No:1 on 02/12/2013 immediately began
to draft a letter and served it in a closed envelope. However, the Petitioner informed that she would
first speak to the Association members who had represented her in the DP case before accepting the
letter. The Respondent No:1 restrained the Petitioner from working in the Department. An email
message with the attached file was sent on 3rd December 2013 to the Petitioner's email address. The
Respondent No:1 began to say. “You are dismissed from now. You can go. You can do whatever you
like.” When the Petitioner pointed out the harsh punishment.
Consequently, It is to pray for the intervention of the Honourable Tribunal to resolve the
injustice done to the Petitioner due to the following salient points:
1) Total lack of humanity, insensitivity and discrimination shown towards the Petitioner. The
vested interested are habituated to cook up DP cases so that the Petitioner looses the promotion
chances. Thus an ulterior motive behind the DP cases well planned in advance. The Disciplinary
Authority for the award staff is the AGM/CM of the OAD department of the Head Office. But
the (AGM of LCPC H.O.) Respondent No:1 has issued orders. Thereby, the whole case is an
unlawful act to cheat the Petitioner of her livelihood.
2) As per the ID Act, no employer can alter the conditions of the service during the pendency of
the proceedings, whereas, the Respondent No:1 has with held monetary entitlements namely
LFC, silver jubilee and festival advance applied. Violations of provisions under Sec33A entitles
punishment of the Respondent No:1.
3) Charge-1 is not true to state fictitious and the Petitioner had paid for the fees. The Petitioner has
the basic right to seek legal service for her grievance wherein monetary entitlements have been
denied to her.
4) Charge-2 shows prejudice and bias towards the Petitioner who has been repeatedly victimised
and exploited. The Charge “attitude” is vague and not clear. The allegation itself spells the
scope of sexual harassment because the Head of the Department and others should be connected
with the job performance and not the attitude of the Petitioner. The vague and flimsy charge
“Attitude” itself vindicates that the Petitioner was expected to be more informal that
tantamounts to sexual harrasment.
5) Charge-3 of using unparliamentary words & wild comments at all staff is not true. The
Petitioner's voice is hoarse and mistaken to be loud. It is not true that the Petitioner has used
abusive words. The witnesses have also spoken the truth that the Petitioner had not used any
6) Charge-4 refusing to take memos is baseless and the Petitoner has cited medical grounds for
non participation in the DP enquiry. The Vice President has represented her case.
7) Charge-5 is absurd and incorrect. All systems are provided with antivirus that restrict pendrives
and are without internet connections. So how can the Petitioner misuse the Computers.
8) Charge-6 is baseless and fabricated. The attached photo shows the black dog adopted by the
security guards in the bank premises in contradiction to the rule office decorum. The black
labrador cross is not my pet. How can they contradict their own charges by adopting a black
dog in the bank premises.
9) Charge-7 is baseless and petty since the Petitioner is staying in rented flat and compelled to
shift and change addresses frequently. Thereby, the address given is for correspondence sake.
10) Charge-8 is baseless and not true. The Petitoner had taken leave on medical grounds and the
related medical certificate produced.
11) Charge-9 & 10 is not true. Despite submission of leave letters the Respondent No:1 has lied
with malafide intentions to cause loss of pay though the Petitioner has additional sick leave.
12) The Petitioner though a senior staff has faced racial and caste discrimination by the Respondent
No:1. It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of caste or religion or region. Article 15
of the Fundamental Rights Act awards equality to all religion, race, caste, creed or color. The
Petitoner's born in an intercaste family. Therefore, the Petitioner is free to adopt any religion.
13) The Petitioner was transferred to Stationery Department as per Order No:Per/Gr.VII/15 dated
8th July 2013 afterwhich few colleagues were envious of the posting to the Petitioner. The
Transfer Order clearly states with immediate effect but the relieving letters were not given by
the Respondent No:1. It clearly spells malafide intentions to harass.
RELIEF PRAYED FOR:
It is to pray the Honourable Tribunal, the Regional Labour Commissioner's Offices, to intervene
and conciliate the case in favourable and justifiable manner. The Petitioner has a contractual
right to be continued in the employment and it is wrongful termination based on discrimination
shown towards the petitioner's religion. For reinstatement of the Petitioner's service and issue
transfer orders to the Stationary Department as per the Transfer Order as aforesaid and listed
below until final judgement taken. To release all the monetary benefits as entitled such as
increments, festival advance, LFC, arrears etc to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's job performance
has been par excellence and many bank officials in the Department had praised her speedy and
accurate work. To quash the punishment imposed as per letter no:F/2/108/30 dated 02/12/2013 in
view of the flimsy and whimsical charges falsely framed against the Petitioner whose character
and integrity remains unblemished.
To pay back dated wages from 03/12/2013 till reinstatement of the Petitioner. The Disciplinary
Authority for the award staff is the AGM/CM of the OAD department of the Head Office. But the
(AGM of LCPC H.O.) Respondent No:1 has issued orders. Thereby, the whole case is an unlawful act
to cheat the Petitioner of her livelihood. The Respondent No:1 is acting on his own and issuing orders
violating the norms and rules of the service conditions.Violation of the principles of natural justice,
thereby the Order would be null and void. The Respondent No:1 is the judge in his own case and he is
everything, i.e. the complainant as well as the judge. Simply a prejudiced case cooked up against the
Last but most important, the Petitioner is not at all guilty of the charges framed against her. It is purely
a case of racial and minority discrimination.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED:
1) Lr.No:F/108/3 dated 08/5/2013...7 pages
2) Lr. No:F/108/30 dated 02/12/2013......6pages
3) Letters dated 05/7/13, 07/3/13, 26/6/13, 26/6/13 for closure of DP case, 15/3/13, 23/7/13 &
01/12/2013 to higher authorities. The Appeal sent by registered post with ack due.
4) Medical Certificate & Transfer Order No:Per/Gr.VII/15 dated 08/7/13...2 pages
FOR WHICH ACT OF K INDNE S S, THE PETITIONE R S HAL L A S INDUT Y
BOUND, E VE R P RAY.
The submissions generate genuine, strong and valid explanations to seek justice as fair as
FILED ON: PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
MS KOTHAKOTA ASHALATA PRABHAKAR R/O G2 PALMAL COURT APTS 10-3-7 EAST
MAREDPALLY SECUNDERABAD-26// 9246220209/8886512534.