Dismissed

Rcc (Sales ) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Feb 2007WP/23854/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 challenging the sanction of prosecution for unfair labour practices, the High Court held that an amicable settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been declared a consent award. Consequently, the court found no cause survived and closed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed on the ground that no cause survived due to the amicable settlement.

Rcc (Sales ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.23854 of 1995

¶6

Date: 14.02.2007

¶7

Between: RCC (Sales) Pvt Ltd, Plot Noo.2&2B IDA, Phase IV, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad Rep. By its Director and two others

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories, (Lab-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.23854 of 1995

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in sanctioning prosecution against petitioners 2 and 3 in G.O.Rt.No.2201, dated 25.09.1995 under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) for violation of Section 25-T read with Item 12 of Schedule V of the Act alleging that the petitioners adopted unfair labour practices in recruiting new workmen in the place of striking workmen, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and also to declare the prosecution launched by the second respondent before the third respondent – Court in S.T.C.No.263 of 1995 as illegal and untenable.

¶16

Pending the above S.T.C, there was an amicable settlement between the management of the first petitioner-company and workers union under Section 18(1) of the Act, which was duly declared as consent award by the Industrial Tribunal – II, Hyderabad. The learned Government Pleader for Labour also filed a memo to the said effect.

¶17

In view of the above settlement, the dispute of Unfair Labour Practices is also settled. Therefore, the respondent authorities are not proceeding any further to launch criminal proceedings against the petitioner-company in pursuance of the impugned Government Order.

¶18

In view of the same, no cause survives in this writ petition and the same is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

__________________ A. Gopal Reddy, J

¶20

Date: 14.02.2007

¶21

Rcc (Sales ) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rcc (Sales ) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Enoch, Vs Union of India, through Secretary

South Central Railway, Vs State Represented by the Labour Enforcement Officer

B.Krupa Rao Vs Dir.of School Edn.Hyderabad

A.Amrutha Raja Kumari Vs Employ Ment Officer

B. Krishna Rao Vs The Executive Officer, Sri Brmarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy

The Registrar, A.P. Agrl. University, Vs Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and