Allowed

A.P.Dairy Development Co-op.Federation Ltd. v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Telangana HC2 Feb 2010WP/455/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of entitlement in execution proceedings. Consequently, the challenged order adjudicating such questions was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Labour Court dated 22.08.2003 adjudicating disputed questions of entitlement was set aside.

A.P.Dairy Development Co-op.Federation Ltd. Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2004

¶3

DATED 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN A.P. Dairy Development Co.op. Federation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Lalapet, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Hyderabad. And Another … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2004

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The issue raised in this writ petition is with regard to the scope and exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court in a petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter is squarely covered by my order dated 05.12.2009 in W.P.No.144 of 2004, wherein I had held that in a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, which is in the nature of an execution proceeding, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions as to the very entitlement of the workman to the amount claimed. The order in M.P.No.15 of 2000 dated 22.08.2003, under challenge in the present case, which adjudicated such questions was in excess of jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶10

It is brought to my notice that this Court vide order dated 08.01.2004 directed the petitioner herein to deposit half of the amount payable under the order passed by the Labour Court within a period of six weeks, granting liberty to the respondent-workman to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. It is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for recovery of the said amount pursuant to this order setting aside the order of the Labour Court. In the event the respondent workman has not withdrawn the sum deposited by the petitioner before the Labour Court pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner is given liberty to move an appropriate application for withdrawing the same. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶12

2^ND FEBRUARY, 2010. VGSR

A.P.Dairy Development Co-op.Federation Ltd. v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Dairy Development Co-op.Federation Ltd. v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Sri Santosh Vidyaniketan High School, Bhongir, Nalgonda Vs The Government of a.P., rep.by its Secretary, School

Guthi Nageswara Rao, S/o.Muni Ramachandra Naidu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

U.R. Krishna, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court

A.P.Dairy Development Co.op.Federation Ltd., Vs The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

The Depot Manager, Vs B.Nagesh

A.P. Dairy Development Co-op. Federation Ltd, Vs The Additional Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court