The High Court dismissed a writ petition petitioning for reinstatement as infructuous because the petitioner was already gainfully employed elsewhere.
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 NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION No.4034 of 1998
Between:
Madhusudhan Pathak, S/o. Jayaram, Nizamabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and after calling entire records from the 1st Respondent and quash the award dated 23/07/1996 and consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. RAVIMOHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR
The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the appeal under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act,1966, the petitioner was granted some relief, in the Second Appeal filed by the Management, the same was modified to that of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in addition to the terminal benefits for the service rendered in the respondent-organization and now the petitioner is gainfully employed elsewhere. Therefore, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.
09-8-2005
prk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition praying for reinstatement can be maintained when the petitioner claims to be gainfully employed elsewhere.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Madhusudhan Pathak
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad
The Authority under Shops and Establishments Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad
The Management of Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Bodhan, Nizamabad
The Indorr District Coop. Marketing Society, Nizamabad
C.V. Ramulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
