Disposed

M/s.Khoday Industries (Hyderabad ) Pvt. Ltd., Shamshabad v. The Presiding officer, Hon`ble Labour court-I

Telangana HC20 Dec 2011WP/15440/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Labour Court Award. The Court found an understanding between parties regarding the workman's withdrawal of proceedings and lack of interest in reinstatement. The petition was disposed of without merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without order on costs; no merits adjudicated.

M/s.Khoday Industries (Hyderabad ) Pvt… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 15440 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari by calling the records in I.D.No.177 of 2004 and declaring the Award dated 22.08.2006 published vide G.O.Rt.No.2323 dated 04.11.2006, on 07.12.2006, on the file of Labour Court-1, Hyderabad as null, void and illegal and consequently quash the impugned Award.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶6

The 2^nd respondent is the workman. He raised industrial dispute vide I.D.No.177 of 2004 on the file of the 1^st respondent herein under Section 2(A)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947, questioning removal from service by order dated 22.08.2006. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, Hyderabad, allowed the I.D., and passed the order holding that the workman is entitled for full backwages and continuity of service from 19.04.2004 to 30.09.2005. For execution of the Award of the Labour Court, the Workman filed E.P.No.3 of 2007. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, the Management filed this writ petition.

¶7

This Court, while ordering Rule Nisi on 20.07.2007

¶8

granted interim stay of further proceedings in the Labour Court Award dated 22.08.2005 in I.D.No.177 of 2004, including the proceedings in E.P.No.3 of 2007 on the file of Labour Court, and permitted the Workman to withdraw half of the amount deposited by the Management in the E.P.No.3 of 2007 filed by the Workman, without furnishing any security.

¶9

The case of the petitioner-Management is that the 2^nd respondent-Workman was terminated from service in accordance with law. Questioning the same, the workman raised industrial dispute I.D.No.177 of 2004. The Labour Court, without considering the plea of the petitioner herein/Management, allowed the I.D. It is also submitted that in compliance of the Award of the Labour Court, the 2^nd respondent-workman has been reinstated into service, and thereafter the workman was removed from service.

¶10

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent-workman would submit that in compliance of the Award of the Labour Court, the workman was reinstated into service and then the petitioner-Management filed the writ petition, and before obtaining any orders in the writ petition, the workman was again removed from service. The counsel filed a Memo dated 07.12.2011, and submits that the 2^nd respondent-workman is not willing to pursue the matter any further and that he is not interested in reinstatement

¶11

into service with the petitioner, and that he may be permitted to withdraw the remaining 50% of the amount deposited in E.P.No.3 of 2007, in the Labour Court, and that an understanding has been arrived at between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent to that effect.

¶12

In pursuance of the Memo dated 07.12.2011 filed by the 2^nd respondent and, in view of the submissions made by both the counsel with regard to the understanding arrived between the parties, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

__________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶14

20^th December, 2011 KSM

M/s.Khoday Industries (Hyderabad ) Pvt. Ltd., Shamshabad v. The Presiding officer, Hon`ble Labour court-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Khoday Industries (Hyderabad ) Pvt. Ltd., Shamshabad v. The Presiding officer, Hon`ble Labour court-I

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

K.Mahendar, Vs The Project Director and Joint Secretary

Payam Ramarao Vs The Project Director and Joint Secretary, Srds

T. Pullaiah Vs The Member Secretary / Commissioner

K. Venkataiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Prasada Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A. Sambasiva Reddy Vs The Managing Director