Disposed

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nandyala Depot. v. Bannugari Basha

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2023WP/27747/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice V. Sujatha considered a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award regarding APSRTC employees. Noting that the petitioners' services had been reinstated and regularized pursuant to the award, the court held that no further adjudication was required and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nandyala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

A?’

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATH •M

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27747 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nandyala Depot.

¶9

The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nandyala.

¶10

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kiirnool.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND 1. Bannugari Basha, S/o Moulali, E.426459, Aged 45years, Ex.APSRTC Casual Driver, C/o:28/169, Near LIG Bus Stop, APHB Colony, Ananthapur. 2. The Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Ananthapur.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari declaring the award made in I.D. No. 141 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same by calling for records relating to the said award dated 11.09.2012.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 34426 OF 20131

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of.the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Interim Suspension of the award dated 11.09.2012 mad in ID.No. 141/2011 ^on the file of industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, pending hearing of the Writ Petition. ' Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALA,

¶17

SCFORAPSRTC

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : SRI A. G. SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : GP FOR LABOUR

¶20

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶21

I I

¶22

¶23

HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE V, SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.27747 OF 2013

¶24

ORDER:;> ^7

¶25

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶26

“...to issue An appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the award made in LD. No. 141 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Passing Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, .. Ananthapur as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same by calling for records relating to the said award dated 11.09.2013 and pass such other order...”

¶27

¶28

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed in I.D, No. 141 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Passing Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which is as under:

¶29

“In the result the LD. is allowed in part. The deletion order passed by the respondent vide proceedings No.01/2(8)/2003-NDI, dated 23.04.2003 and the orders of the appellate and review authority are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service. The petitioner is not entitled for back-wages and attendant benefits on the principle of “No work No pay”.

¶30

Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein have stated that in pursuance of the award passed by this Court, the petitioners services were reinstated and thereafter, in the year 2015, the petitioners services were also regularized. 4. In view of the same, this Court feels that nothing

¶31

survives for further adjudication.

¶32

Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no

¶33

order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

¶37

g -X'.S- < //TRUEmUECOPW,COPY//
■ SECTION OFFICER
1 Solomon Raju Manchala for (APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to Sri. A G Satyanarayana Rao Advocate [OPUC]
4 Two CD^Coptes labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
PV

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/04/2023

ORDER

WP.No.27747 of 2013

¶43

a ® 8 SEP 2023

¶44

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nandyala Depot. v. Bannugari Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nandyala Depot. v. Bannugari Basha

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

Guru Prasad Mishra Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

N.Vijayasree, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.v.Naga Vara Prasad, Vs Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple

Matta Geetha Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Amala Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Dr. Sadarla Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh