Disposed

M/S. Padma Engineering Works v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2023WP/706/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to declare the recovery of Labour Cess illegal. Relying on a previous order in a batch case, the Court directed the respondents to first verify if work bills included the relevant estimates before deducting the 1% cess; otherwise, no deduction is permissible.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; respondents to verify bills and deduct 1% cess only if amounts are included in estimates, otherwise no deduction.

M/S. Padma Engineering Works Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.706 of 2023

¶4

Between:- M/s.Padma Engineering Works, Rep.by its Manager, Mr.K.Venkateswara Rao. .... Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi & Others. ..... Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.G.R.Sudhakar Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Irrigation and CAD Mr.V.Raja Manohar, Standing Counsel for APSIDC

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.V.Raja

¶10

Manohar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to

¶11

¶12

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to recover the Labour Cess from the work bills of the petitioner’s Company vide Agreement No.27/2018-2019 dated 08.02.2019 in respect of the works relating to construction and commissioning of Kothakota Lift Irrigation Scheme on T.B.River in C.Belgal Mandal of Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to deduct 1% Labour Cess from the petitioner’s Company.

¶13

At the time of considering the matter, the learned counsel for the

¶14

petitioner submits that the issue of collection of Labour Cess at the rate of

¶15

¶16

1% from the contractors, without including the same in the work estimates/agreements prepared by the respondents, fell for consideration in W.P.No.16156 of 2020 & Batch etc. The learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide Order dated 20.09.2023. He submits that the petitioner in the present writ petition is also entitled to the benefit of the said orders and the writ petition may be disposed of on similar lines.

¶17

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶18

Considering the submissions made and perusing the Order dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.No.16156 of 2020 & Batch, this Court is inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition with the following directions:

¶19

(a) The respondents shall verify the bills of the petitioner and if the corresponding amount is included in the estimates, the respondents can deduct amount as prescribed at the rate of 1% towards Labour Cess.

¶20

(b) Upon verification, if the respondents found that the corresponding amount is not included in the estimates, the respondents shall not take steps to deduct the amount/recover the amount from the petitioner towards Labour Cess.

¶21

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall

¶22

be no order as to costs.

¶23

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶25

Date: 24.11.2023 BLV

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶28

W.P.No.706 of 2023

¶29

Date: 24.11.2023

¶30

BLV

M/S. Padma Engineering Works v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Padma Engineering Works v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajula Mangamma, Vs Sri. J. Syamala Rao

Gopidesi Rajendra Vs Special Deputy Collector, ( L. a.) (Fac)

Kota Maheswari Vs S.V. Nageswara Rao

M/S. Padma Engineering Works Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Novitas Infotech, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vendra Gopala Krishna Vs the State of Ap