Disposed¶19

Margani Ramesh v. the Presiding Officer, Centralgovt Industrial Tribunal & 4

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Apr 2026WP/16461/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226; certiorari against industrial tribunal award; LCID No.88 of 2003; Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad; Margani Ramesh; engagement and regularization of petitioner; disposal in terms of orders dated 20.03.2019 in W.A. No.1268 of 2014 and batch; award set aside; remand for de novo consideration within five months; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 17.05.2005 in LCID No.88 of 2003 set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal for de novo disposal within five months; no costs. ¶19

Margani Ramesh Vs the Presiding Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010195652006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO: 16461 of 2006

¶4

Bench Sr.No:-41 [3506]

¶5

Margani Ramesh Vs.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

The Presiding Officer Central Govt Industrial ...Respondent(s) Tribunal and Others

¶8

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner: O MANOHER REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, V UMA DEVI

¶10

CORAM :SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 9th April 2026

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶13

“to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records pertaining to the Award passed in LCID. No.88 of 2003, dated 17.05.2005, on the file of The Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad and set aside/quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and excess utilization of its power and consequently direct the respondents to engage petitioner and regularize in service in the due course and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶14

¶15

CGR, J W.P. No.16461 of 2006

¶16

2. Heard Sri S.Noor Mohammed, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner on record and Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned standing counsel for respondents.

¶17

3. Both learned counsels have stated that the issue raised in

¶18

the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders dated 20.03.2019 passed in W.A. No.1268 of 2014 and batch, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the same.

¶19

4. Considering aforesaid submissions, this writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the impugned award dated 17.05.2005 passed in LCID. No.88 of 2003, on the file of learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Hyderabad, and the matter stands remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the same after de novo consideration, within an outer limit of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

¶20

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

¶21

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶22

Margani Ramesh v. the Presiding Officer, Centralgovt Industrial Tribunal & 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Margani Ramesh v. the Presiding Officer, Centralgovt Industrial Tribunal & 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.B. Srinivas, Vizianagaram District Vs Andhra Bank, Kurnool District

B v R Ch Prasad Vs G Sai Prasad IAS

M.Padamaja, Vs Brigadier v Venkata Reddy

N. Kalavathi Vs Sri Abhilash Bikshit, Commissioner

K.Naveneetham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Mr. N. Vasantha Rao Vs Sri B. Prasada Rao