The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that denied the petitioner past service benefits while reinstating him. The Court held there were no merits to entertain the petition given the eight-year delay.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 13084 of 2005
Between:
M.A. Hameed, E-89917, S/o M.D. Ameer, R/o Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of "Certiorari" or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the award of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.626/1993, dt.10-11-1997, which was published in the Gazettee vide G.O.Rt.No.3288 dt.19-12-1997, insofar it went against to the petitioner in denying the past service benefits as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and as such set aside the same by further directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as reinstated into service with all consequential benefits from the date of Award.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: G.P. FOR LABOUR
The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.626 of 1993 dated 10-11-1997 under which the petitioner was denied the benefit of his past service as the Tribunal directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner.
2 . The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated, but at the same time denied the benefit of back wages as well as continuity of service and other benefits. It is stated that the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the order dated 10-11-1997. However, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition after eight years of the award. The petitioner did not explain the circumstances under which the petitioner could not approach this Court within the reasonable time.
3 . After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, I do not find any merits to entertain this writ petition, especially, after eight years from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
S.ANANDA REDDY, J
21st June, 2005 SKM
Copy to
High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)
6 Two CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{AVLR}
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition filed over eight years after the Labour Court award denying past service benefits.
M.A. Hameed
The APSRTC
The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad
S. Ananda Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
