Allowed

B.Mallapa v. Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

Telangana HC27 Dec 2011WP/34042/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's rejection of an industrial dispute petition for time-bar under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court set aside the order due to violation of natural justice, lacking notice to the petitioner, and directed the Tribunal to rehear the case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.02.2011 is set aside; direction to Tribunal to consider the case regarding maintainability after giving an opportunity.

B.Mallapa Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34042 of 2011

Date:27.12.2011

Between:

B. Mallpa

……….Petitioner.

And

APSRTC rep by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

……….Respondents.

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.34042 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

¶14

2. The petitioner was working as Cleaner continuously under the control of the 2^nd respondent – Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Sangareddy, Medak District from 02-01-1990. While so, the petitioner was retrenched from service on 31-12-1990 and on being unsuccessful in the appeal and in the revision, he raised Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) on the file of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad.

¶15

By order dated 21.02.2011, the Tribunal rejected the I.D. on the ground of maintainability under Section 2-A (3) of the Act, as it was filed after three years from the date of termination. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶16

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that before rejecting the I.D. by passing a detailed order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner.

¶17

4. From a perusal of the impugned order, it could be seen that the Tribunal before pronouncing the order rejecting the I.D., has not given notice to the petitioner, enabling him to answer the objections raised by the Tribunal with regard to maintainability of the I.D. This amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. On this count alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶18

5. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.88/2011 is set aside and consequently, it is directed that the Tribunal shall consider the case of the petitioner with regard to maintainability, by giving an opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶19

6. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶20

No costs.

¶21

Justice G. Chandraiah

¶22

Date:27.12.2011.

¶23

mrb

B.Mallapa v. Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Mallapa v. Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

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

M.Sudhakar Vs The Superintending Engineer, Operation circle

B.Uma Maheswar Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle

Valluru Subbulu Naidu Vs Mr. Valluru Sreedhar

Smt. N. Radha Kumari, Vs Regional Manager

Sri Mallesha Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

G.P. Chandar Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director