Partly allowed

Ap Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. M Viswanatha Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2024WA/1045/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Corporation appealed against a Single Judge's order directing reinstatement of daily-wage claimants with continuity of service but no backwages. Finding the facts disputed and requiring evidentiary appraisal, the Division Bench set aside that order and relegated the claimants to the Labour Court/Tribunal under Section 10(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, with limitation protection and a six-month

What the court decided

AI extract

Ap Power Generation Corporation Ltd… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1045 OF 2022

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent urged during the course hearing Allow the Writ Appeal, by setting aside the order Dt 8-11-2022 passed in W.P.No. 25651 of 2007. And pass such on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

AP POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, A.P

¶11

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project (RTPP), Kalamalla Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District ,

¶12

...APPELLANT(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

M VISWANATHA REDDY, S/o. M.Chennareddy, aged 33 years, 26/888, Nagendra Nagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District.

¶15

S M D Ghouse, , S/o. S.Adbul Sattar, aged 35 years, 26/189, Netaji Nagar, 2nd Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District

¶16

S Rafi Ahammad, , S/o. Dastagiri Saheb, aged about 36 Years, R/o. 15/115 Jabbar Shed Street, Proddatur, Kadapa District.

¶17

A Subramanyachari, S/o. Nagabhushanachari, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶18

N Pullareddy, S/o. N.Ramasubba Reddy, aged about 31 Years, R/o. Yerraguntla Village and Mandal , Kadapa District.

¶19

A Venkata Ramanaiah, , S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah, Aged about 41 Years, 7/522 A, Korrapadu Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District.

¶20

G Srinivasulu, S/o. G. Yerikalanna , Aged about 34 Years, R/o. Settipalle Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶21

¶22

K Raja Reddy, S/d. K. Rammohan Reddy, Aged about 30 Years, R/o. Rangasapuram Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶26

1. The Appellants are before this Court being aggrieved by

¶27

the Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.11.2022, rendered in W.P. No. 25651 of 2007.

¶28

This Intra-Court Appeal is preferred, questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned Order, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to issue directions in the following terms:

¶29

“8. Therefore, in terms of the orders in I.D.No.218/2000, W.P.No.21947/2005 and W.A.No.1269/2017 and for the reasons mentioned therein, this Writ Petition is allowed and the petitioners herein are held to be entitled for reinstatement into service as regular employees with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without backwages. The respondent authorities shall take steps for placing the petitioners in suitable posts expeditiously but not later than six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

¶30

¶31

The Order is assailed on many grounds including that

¶32

the adjudication of the Petitioners claim must be preceded by appreciation of the evidentiary material in support of their claims.

¶33

Having heard the learned Counsels and having found that the facts involved are not undisputed and with the Appellants stoutly contesting the correctness and veracity of the claim of the Petitioners; in our opinion, the matter ought to have been relegated to the competent authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶34

Admittedly, all the Petitioners are claiming to have discharged duties in the nature of electricians, boilers maintenance, etc. and on a daily wage basis and claims to have constituted the labour force employed by the Appellants in the running of its business. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that, the Petitioners are not the employees of the Corporation or rather their services were not engaged by the Corporation and that their services have been engaged by the contractor and in that view of the matter, there is no privity of

¶35

¶36

contract between the Petitioners and the Respondents Corporation.

¶37

In view of the admitted position that facts are not settled, in our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the parties to the forum specifically created by the Statue for enabling a fact finding exercise and thereby separating chaff from the rice, which exercise, in our considered opinion, is not an exercise that is envisioned for the Constitutional Court.

¶38

The matter was heard on previous dates and the learned Counsel for the Petitioners had sought time to secure instructions as to whether the Petitioners would be willing to commence or raise claims before the competent authority under Section 10 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶39

Today the learned Counsel for the Petitioners i.e., the Respondents herein, submits that the Petitioners are willing to establish their rights by placing relevant and evidentiary material demonstrating their claims before the competent authority. The learned Counsel for the Appellants also would

¶40

¶41

indicate the willingness of his clients to participate in any proceeding for adjudication of the claims of the Petitioners.

¶42

The submissions are placed on record.

¶43

In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal is partly

¶44

allowed . The Order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. Liberty is granted to the Petitioners to invoke the provision of Section 10 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and file their claims before the Labour Court/Tribunal in Anantapur. In the event such a claim is filed within four [04] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this Order, the claims shall not be adjudicated on the point of limitation and shall be considered and disposed of on merits.

¶45

The Petitioners may file their claims by serving an advance copy to the Appellants. If such claim is filed under Section 10(A), the Labour Court/Tribunal and the parties shall endeavor to have the adjudication concluded within six [06] months from the date of filing the claim petition. The Labour Court / Tribunal shall not grant unnecessary adjournments. At any rate the Court shall dispose of the

¶46

¶47

claims within an outer limit of six months from the date the

¶48

claim is filed into Court.

¶49

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

¶50

________________________ JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶51

____________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶52

Sm…/..

¶53

¶54

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶55

W.P. No. 1045 of 2022

¶56

Dated: 13.02.2024

¶57

Sm…

Ap Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. M Viswanatha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ap Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. M Viswanatha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Satyanarayana Vs Union of India

The Deputy General Manager Andhra Bank Head Office Vs P Nageswara Rao

Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Vs S.Janardhan Naidu

Madhurantakam Vijay Bhaskar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Dr.G.J.Sujnana Raju

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd. Vs S Suryanarayana