Dismissed¶63

The Dept Manager, Apsrtc, Rayadurg, Ananthapur Dist. v. Sri M.V. Raju, and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2025WP/3960/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC Rayadurg Depot; M.V. Raju ex-RTC conductor; I.D. No.335/2002; award dt. 13-7-2006 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Anantapur; G.O.Rt.No.1861 Lab.I Dept. dt. 1-9-2006; back wages; removal and reinstatement; writ petitions dismissed as infructuous 25-04-2025; Justice Ravi Cheemalapati; Article 226; Section 151 CPC; W.P.M.P. Nos. 4577 & 5062 of 2007; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submission of Sri M.V. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.3596 of 2007 and for Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.3960 of 2007, that the cause in the writ petitions did not survive and they had become infructuous, the writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous. ¶44

The Dept Manager, Apsrtc, Rayadurg… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the award dated 13-7-2006 in I.D. No.335 of 2002 was arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice to the extent of not granting back wages to the petitioner (workman), warranting quashing to that extent and a direction to Respondent No.2 (Depot Manager, APSRTC) to pay back wages from the date of removal from service till reinstatement into service (framed in W.P. No.3596 of 2007). +2 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

¶44

Key takeaways

There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶45
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati (Ravi Cheemalapati, J.), 25-04-2025, in W.P. Nos. 3596 & 3960 of 2007. W.P. No.3596 of 2007 was filed by workman M.V. Raju under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash the award dated 13-7-2006 in I.D. No.335 of 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (published in G.O.Rt.No.1861, Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab.I) Dept., dated 1-9-2006) to the extent it denied back wages, and a direction to the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayadurg to pay back wages from the date of removal from service till reinstatement. W.P. No.3960 of 2007 was filed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC seeking quashing of the same award. On the submission of Sri M.V. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel, that the cause in the writ petitions did not survive and they had become infructuous, both writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, were ordered to stand closed. The merits of the award were not adjudicated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3596 & 3960 OF 2007

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 3596 OF 2007

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.V. Raju, s/o. V.V.Raju, aged about 41 years, Employee,^r/oPlotNo.36 SBI Colony, Engineering College Road, Anantapur.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1, The Chairman Cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal^cumLabour Court, Anantapur.

¶14

The Depot manager, APSRTC, Rayadurg Depot, Rayadurg,^Anantapur district.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 more particularly one in^thenature of Writ of Certiorari calling upon the records pertaining to I.D.^{No.335of2002dated} 13-7-2006 on the file of the 1st respondent which was published in G.O.Rt.

¶17

¶18

No. 1861 Labour employment Training & Factories (Lab.I) Dept., dated 1- 9-2006 and to quash the same as arbtirary, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice to the extent of not granting back wages to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to pay the back wags to the petitioner from the date of removal from service till reinstatement into service.

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2007fWPMP. NO: 4577 OF 2007)

¶20

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 expedite the hearing of the WP by fixing an early date of hearing in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI IVI V PRATAP REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No,2: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO: 3960 OF 2007

¶25

Between:

¶26

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayadurg, Ananthapur Dist., Ananthapur District.

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

AND

¶29

Sri M.V. Raju, S/o. V.V.Raju, Ex-RTC Conductor, C/o. 8/386, Court road, Ananthapur.

¶30

2. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court,, Ananthapur.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

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 call for the records relating to I.D.no.335/2002 on the^file of the Labour Court, Ananthapur and quash the award dt. 13.7.2006 by issuing appropriate Writ order or direction more particuarly^one in the nature of writ of certiorari.

¶33

LA. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 5062 OF 20071

¶34

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 the award in I.D.no.335/2002 dt. 13.7.2006 on the file of the Labour Court, Ananthapur pending disposal of the above W.P. land.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P VINAYAKA SWAMY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.2; GP FOR LABOUR

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M V PRATAP REDDY

¶38

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶39

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶40

WRIT PETITION Nos.3596 & 3960 OF 2007

¶41

COMMON ORDER:

¶42

Sri M.V.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3596 of 2007 and learned counsel for respondent^No.1 in Writ Petition No.3960 of 2007 submitted that the cause in the Writ Petitions does

¶43

not survive and the Writ Petitions have become infructuous.

¶44

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petitions are dismissed as

¶45

infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall^standclosed.

¶47

Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE COPY//