The petitioner union challenged a retrenchment notice issued with a view to closing a factory. The High Court found the writ petition premature as no action had been taken in pursuance of the notice and dismissed it.
The writ petition was dismissed as premature.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
W.P.No.6006 of 2000
Dated 23rd Day of July, 2007
Between: Karuna Cables Employees Union, rep. by its Joint Secretary, Naga Malleswara Reddy, Bachipalli village .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary for Labour and Employment, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others .. Respondents
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Notice dated 10.12.1999 issued by the 4th respondent retrenching the members of the petitioner-union from the 5th respondent-factory with a view to closing down the factory at Bollaram village, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District with effect from 10.1.2000 as illegal and arbitrary.
The case of the petitioner-union is that its members are the employees of the 5th respondent-factory with various designations and they are eking out their livelihood on the factory. The 5th respondent engaged 50 to 100 other casual labourers on daily wage basis. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 10.12.1999 to the 1st respondent-Government retrenching the members of the petitioner-employees union from the 5th respondentfactory with a view to closing down the factory which is in violation of Sections 25-FFA and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the 5th respondent has not paid the members of the petitionerunion, either provident fund or retrenchment compensation.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
In fact, it is not known as to what happened in pursuance of the impugned letter. Unless some action is initiated, no direction upholding the right of the members of the petitioner-union can be issued to the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is pre-mature.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as premature.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court as and when a final order is passed by the 5th respondent-factory. No costs.
________________ 23.07.2007 bcj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to declare the retrenchment notice illegal before any action is taken in pursuance of the notice.
Whether the writ petition is premature as no action has been initiated by the respondents in pursuance of the impugned retrenchment letter.
Karuna Cables Employees Union
The Government of A.P.
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
