Dismissed

Rotary Netra Rural Eye Hospital v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Labour,Hyd,and 9

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jun 2023WP/25593/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition under Article 226 sought writ of certiorari to quash a minimum wage order of the Labour Commissioner regarding delay condonation. The writ court dismissed the petition because trial proceedings against the hospital had commenced and were posted for regular hearings, negating the case for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the order in M.W.M.P. No. 2 of 2014 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rotary Netra Rural Eye Hospital Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^{AT AMARAVATI} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 25593 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rotary Netra Rural Eye Hospital, Chairman N. Mrutyumjaya Rao, through its authorized signatory-cum Administrative Officer, Sri. Dhavala Yagneswara^Chainulu, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, aged 56 years, Saripalli Village, Pendurthy^Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Secretariat) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

Joint Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh-Cum-authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Upstairs of Andhra Bank, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam - 16.

¶11

Mudipaka Simhachalam, S/o. Late Appanna, aged about 40 years,

¶12

Pothurajula Srinu, S/o. Appa Rao, aged about 35 years.

¶13

Rongala Ramakrishna, S/o. Appala Naidu, aged about 40 years

¶14

Vanapalli Poornima, W/o. Ramakrishna, aged about 35 years.

¶15

Uppada Simhachalam, W/o. Appa Rao, aged about 33 years.

¶16

Kalapalli Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Late Kamaraju, aged about 60 years.

¶17

Velidhi Muralidhar, S/o. Rama Rao, aged about 46 years.

¶18

Kasikarla Anuradha, W/o. Swamy Naidu, aged about 38 years.

¶19

Respondents 3 to 10 are Union Office @ D. No. 9-32-24, Pithapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam - 530 013.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for entire records connected to Order dt. 21.12.2015 in M.W.M.P. No. 2 of 2014 in [IA01/2015 in MWMP 02/2014 passed by 2nd respondent, examine the same and set it aside after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and offends article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently dismiss the application in M.W.M.P. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of^2nd respondent.

¶22

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 31628 OF 2016)

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Order dt. 21.12.2015 in M.W.M.P. No. 2 of 2014 in [IA01/2015 in MWMP 02/2014 passed by 2nd respondent, Pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V PREETHAM SURYA, for SRI NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents 1&2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 10: SRI K.V. SATYA RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.25593 of 2016

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶30

"... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for entire records connected to Order dt.2I.12.2015 in M.W.M.P.No.2 of 2014 in IA01/2015 in MWMP 02/2014 passed by 2nd respondent, examine the same and set it aside after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and offends Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently dismiss the application in M.W.M.P.No.2 of 2014 on the file of 2nd respondent..."

¶31

The present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in M.W.M.P.No.02 of 2014 in I.A.No.01 of 2015 in M.W.M.P.No.02 of 2014 of the 2nd respondent herein on the ground of condoning the delay of 1379 days. Though this writ petition is of the year 2016, no interim order was granted by this Court.

¶32

When the writ petition came up for hearing today, learned Government Pleader for Labour has produced a copy of the instructions of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the orders passed in M.W.M.P.No.2 of 2014, the trial

¶33

¶34

has commenced and the case has been posted for^{regularhearings} on 10.05.2023 and, thereafter, adjourned to^20.06.2023.

¶35

In view of the _ same, as the^{petitionerHospitalhasalso} adduced evidence in the trial^{commencedbythe2ndrespondent} herein, this Court does not find any^{ground to interfere with the case.}

¶36

Accordingly, this writ petition is^{dismissed.Thereshallbeno} order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{application,pending, if any, shall} also stand closed.

¶38

Sid- T. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Namavarapu Chanti Babu Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri. K.V. Satya Ramachandra Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Sdkr

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED: 13/06/202 3 qTED: 3

ORDER

WP•No•25593 of 2016

3jI1~?2-3

GNEWP wTHouT cosm

Rotary Netra Rural Eye Hospital v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Labour,Hyd,and 9

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rotary Netra Rural Eye Hospital v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Labour,Hyd,and 9

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Md. Yousuf, Ananthapur District Vs Prl. Secretary, Housing Dept., Hyderabad and 3 Others

Nagavani Filing Station Vs the Government of Ap

K.S.R and Company Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Valluru Pavan Chand Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Gvr Infra Projects Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Avens Expositions Pvt.Ltd Vs Sri Pradyumna Ps