Disposed

Kollu Venkata Subbaiah v. The Depot Manager

Telangana HC2 Dec 2011WP/31656/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the setting aside of an order granting regularization of services by this Court, the division bench directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority within two weeks seeking regularization, directing the Corporation to consider the same within two months in accordance with law before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make representation for regularization within two weeks; Corporation directed to consider the same within two months.

Kollu Venkata Subbaiah Vs The Depot Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 31656 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the Award dated 20.12.2004, passed in I.D.No.150 of 1996, and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of appointment till the date of filing the writ petition, with all consequential benefits and with back wages.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-Corporation.

¶6

The facts which are not in dispute are:

¶7

The petitioner herein is a workman, who was earlier terminated from service. Questioning the termination, he filed industrial dispute in I.D.No.150 of 1996 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, by Award dated 20.12.2004, allowed the said I.D. and passed an order while setting aside the order of termination and ordered for reinstatement and also for regularization of services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Corporation filed W.P.No.22621 of 2005, on the file of this Court. By order dated 14.06.2011, this Court upheld the Award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of reinstatement and set aside the order of the Labour Court to the extent of regularization and the said order has become final. Aggrieved by the order passed in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner filed W.A.No.908 of 2011, wherein the division bench of

¶8

this Court confirmed the orders as passed in the writ petition, but giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent to regularize his services.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner was terminated from service and which was set aside by the labour court and ordered for regularization of his services while directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the respondent-Corporation filed W.P.No.22621 of 2005, wherein this Court upheld the order of reinstatement, but set aside the order to the extent of regularization. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.A.No.908 of 2011, wherein the order in said W.P. has been confirmed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of services and reinstatement and other benefits and services. Therefore, the present writ is filed for regularization for services, having regard to the length of service.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that though the Labour Court ordered reinstatement and regularization of services of the petitioner, by virtue of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22621 of 2005 and subsequently in W.A.No.908 of 2011, this Court confirmed the reinstatement of service but set aside regularization, and hence, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement and not regularization.

¶11

Admittedly, the petitioner is working in the respondentCorporation since long time. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to

¶12

make an appropriate representation to the appropriate authority seeking regularization of services within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. And, within two months from the date of making such a representation by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

¶13

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶15

02^nd December, 2011 KSM

Kollu Venkata Subbaiah v. The Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollu Venkata Subbaiah v. The Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Pullaiah Cheepi Vs Andhra pradesh Public Service Commission

Frank Anthony Vs The Managing Director

A.Shankaraiah Vs The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad

P.Ramesh Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

D.Illaiah Vs The Regional Manager

S.Nanda Gopal Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited