Disposed¶22

M/S.Ushodaya Publications v. Labour Court,Guntur & Another

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Mar 2026WP/22822/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ushodaya Publications; Eenadu Complex Hyderabad; Labour Court Guntur; W.P.M.P. Nos. 127 & 126 of 1994; Section 33(1)(2) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; workmen service benefits; prior settlement; maintainability; W.P. No. 4598 of 2007 and batch; order dated 16.12.2016 High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (Telangana and Andhra Pradesh); writ petitions closed in terms of earlier order; no costs; interlocutory applications closed; Challa Gunaranjan J; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; decided 12-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions closed in terms of the order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, closed. ¶22

M/S.Ushodaya Publications Vs Labour Court,Guntur & Another — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions closed in terms of the order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, closed.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions challenging the Labour Court's orders dated 10.07.2000 in W.P.M.P. Nos.127 and 126 of 1994 (allowing the workmen's claims under Section 33(1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) should be disposed of in terms of the High Court's order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch concerning similar issues.

¶18

Court's answer

These writ petitions are closed in terms of the order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch, for reasons alike stated therein; no costs awarded.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, stand closed.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition Nos. 22761 & 22822 of 2000 — Ushodaya Publications, Eenadu Complex, Hyderabad v. Labour Court, Guntur and another (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Challa Gunaranjan, J., 12th March 2026). The writ petitions challenged the orders dated 10.07.2000 of the 1st respondent-Tribunal (Labour Court, Guntur) in W.P.M.P. Nos. 127 and 126 of 1994, whereby miscellaneous petitions instituted by workmen under Section 33(1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming service benefits were allowed. The Management had opposed the miscellaneous petitions on maintainability (pleading an existing settlement and receipt of monetary benefits by the workmen without raising any dispute) as well as on merits; the Tribunal rejected the maintainability contention, traversed the merits and allowed the claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 16.12.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 4598 of 2007 and batch concerning similar issues and urged disposal in terms thereof; the learned Government Pleader for Labour did not dispute the submission, and none appeared for the respondent employees. Held: the writ petitions were closed in terms of the order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No. 4598 of 2007 and batch, with no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood closed as a sequel.

¶1

APHC010515542000

¶2

Bench Sr.No:-31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506] AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WRIT PETITION NOs: 22761 & 22822 of 2000

¶4

Ushodaya Publications, Eenadu Complex, Hyd ...Petitioner Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and another ...Respondent

¶5

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner: Mrs.G SUDHA

¶7

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR LABOUR,

¶8

Mr.N GOPI CHAND

¶9

CORAM :SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th March 2026

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Both these writ petitions are instituted challenging even orders dated 10.07.2000 passed in W.P.M.P. Nos.127 and 126 of 1994 respectively on the file of 1^st respondent – Tribunal, which eventually came to be allowed by the Tribunal by aforesaid orders.

¶12

2. The respondent workmen have instituted aforesaid miscellaneous petitions under Section 33(1)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming for the service benefits. The writ

¶13

¶14

CGR, J W.P. Nos.22761 & 22822 of 2000

¶15

petitioner – Management has opposed the said application both on maintainability as well as on merits.

¶16

3. Insofar as maintainability was concerned, it was pleaded that inasmuch as already there was a settlement reached between the parties and that the workmen have already received the monetary benefits without raising any dispute, they were precluded from instituting the claims. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with aforesaid contention of maintainability and further traversed on the merits of the matter and ultimately allowed the claims.

¶17

4. Heard Smt.G.Sudha, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour for 1^st respondent and none appears for respondent employees.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch, concerning similar issues and would urge to dispose of the present cases in terms of aforesaid orders. Leaned Government Pleader appearing for 1^st respondent did not dispute the said submission.

¶19

¶20

CGR, J W.P. Nos.22761 & 22822 of 2000

¶21

6. In view of the above submissions and for reasons alike in the

¶22

order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch, these writ petitions are also closed in terms thereof. No costs.

¶23

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending

¶24

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25