Allowed

M/s. Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., v. The Authority under a.P.Shpps and Establishment Act, 1988-

Telangana HC1 Apr 2011WA/716/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court modified an interim stay order imposing a monetary deposit condition, setting it aside to ensure consistency with a similar connected petition. It directed the main writ petition to be listed with another related case.

What did the court decide?

The condition requiring payment of half the determined amount imposed by the Single Judge is set aside.

M/s. Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIELF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO

¶2

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶4

W.A. No.716 of 2010

¶5

Dated 16-11-2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s.Exensys Software Solutions Limited, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

……..Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authority under AP Shops and Establishment Act, 1988-cumAssistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

………Respondents

¶12

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIELF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO

¶13

¶14

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶15

W.A. No.716 of 2010

¶16

JUDGMENT (Per HACJ):

¶17

Heard Dr. P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri V.Hari Haran, learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the contesting respondents 1 and 2 and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

¶18

2. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition filed by them seeking, inter alia, to assail the proceedings dated 28-01-2010 in S.E.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the 1^st respondent and also the order dated 10-05-2010 in S.A.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the 2^nd respondent confirming the order of the 1^st respondent arisen under

¶19

the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. The learned Single Judge, while granting interim stay in favour of the appellants, imposed a condition that the appellants pay directly to R-3 to R-5 half of the amount determined as due and payable to them, through crossed demand draft/pay order on or before

¶20

08-09-2010. Aggrieved by the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants approached this Court and filed this writ appeal.

¶21

3. The main contention urged on behalf of the appellants is to the effect that in the connected writ petition in W.P.No.23156 of 2010, in the similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge granted interim stay without imposing any condition, whereas in the present writ petition, the learned Single Judge gratned conditional stay. Therefore, there is an inconsistency and for which the appellants have to face much hardship.

¶22

4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, it is apparent that there is inconsistency between these two orders which need to be modified for making a consistent order rather than allowing any such inconsistency.

¶23

5. In view of the same, the writ appeal is allowed. It is hereby modified to the extent that the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge that the appellants are directed to deposit half of the amount stands set aside. This order is only for the purpose of enabling both sides to take up this issue in the main writ petition. It is also made clear that any of the observations made in these orders would not give importance.

¶24

6. Further, considering the pleadings on both sides, we are of the opinion that the main writ petition can be listed for hearing along with connected W.P.No.23159 of 2010. Therefore, office is directed to

¶25

post the main writ petition i.e. W.P.No.18869 of 2010 along with W.P.No.23159 of 2010 before the learned Single Judge concerned on 22-11-2011 for hearing and dispose of the interlocutory applications in both the writ petitions i.e. W.P.MP.No.23159 in 23156 of 2009 and W.P.MP.No.1706 of 2010 in W.P.No.18869 of 2010.

¶26

7. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

16^th November 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o. KVR

M/s. Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., v. The Authority under a.P.Shpps and Establishment Act, 1988-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., v. The Authority under a.P.Shpps and Establishment Act, 1988-

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

Manepalli Mohan Rao Vs S.Suresh Kumar, I.a.S, Project Officer

Torlakonda Mangamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Torlakonda Mangamma Vs The Government of a.P., represented by its Secretary

K.Sivarama Krishna Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh,Industries and Commerce

Dr.a.Aruna Kumari, Vs Smt.Kavitha Gurrala

R. Ramu Vs Sri Rameswar Roy