Disposed

Y. Srinivasulu Reddy, E. 410792, Conductor, v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court

Telangana HC6 Jul 2006WP/13685/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to compel the Labour Court at Ananthapur to file a counter-affidavit and dispose of industrial dispute I.D.No.132 of 2005 within six months, based on statutory provisions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Labour Court to pass appropriate final orders after conducting necessary enquiry within six months.

Y. Srinivasulu Reddy, E. 410792, Conductor… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.13685 OF 2006

¶4

Dated 6.7.2006

¶5

Between: Sri Y.Srinivasulu Reddy

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District and another.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.13685 OF 2006

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent – Labour Court, Ananthapur to dispose of I.D.No.132 of 2005 filed by the petitioner as per the mandatory provisions contained in Section 10(A-2) read with Rule 12A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and the rules framed thereunder.

¶14

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation at Pulivendula Depot, Cuddapah District in the year 1996. In the year 2004, certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and after conducting necessary enquiry, final order of removal from service was passed. It is stated that the said order of removal was also confirmed by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner questioned the order of

¶15

removal by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.132 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Ananthapur. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2^nd respondent is statutorily obligated to file counter affidavit before the Labour Court to enable it to dispose of the matter but no steps are being take as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.

¶16

Even according to the petitioner, the removal order was passed in the year 2004 and ultimately the dispute came to be filed before the Labour Court, Ananthapur only in the month of July 2005. In view of the same, I deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent – Labour Court to pass appropriate final orders after conducting necessary enquiry within a period of six months from today.

¶17

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶19

Dated 6.7.06

¶20

msv

Y. Srinivasulu Reddy, E. 410792, Conductor, v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Srinivasulu Reddy, E. 410792, Conductor, v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kondaiah, Vs The President

Md. Isamuddin Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C.

S. Shahjahan Vs Commissioner

D.Satyanarayana, Vs The President/Appellate Authority Nalgonda District -

M/s. Ayyappa Traders, Vs The Joint Collector Cum Purchasing Committee

A.Krishnaswamy Dikshitulu Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor