Dismissed

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Syed Moinuddin Hussain

Telangana HC9 Dec 2011WP/4808/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation filed writ petitions challenging an Industrial Tribunal award reinstating former Section Writers. The High Court dismissed the petitions following a precedent holding the Tribunal's findings on 'industry' and 'workman' status were settled and the reinstatement order not liable to interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions for Certiorari dismissed; parties to bear own costs.

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.Nos.4807 & 4808 of 2011

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶5

These writ petition have been filed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Awards dated 5-11-2008 passed in I.D.Nos.141 and 142 of 2005 by the 3^rd respondent-Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, and published on 31-1-2009 vide G.O.Rt.No.2451, Labour, Employment Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, dated 24-12-2008.

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that the un-official respondents in both the writ petitions were engaged as NMRs (Section Writer) for census work on 1-11-1989. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.18, General Administration (Elections-B) Department, dated 16-1-1990 sanctioning the posts of one Senior Assistant and twenty sever Junior Assistants to the petitioner-Corporation. In pursuance of the said G.O, the petitioner issued orders to the un-official respondents and others appointing them as LDC’s on a

¶7

consolidated pay on temporary basis with effect from 1-41990 and posted to Circle-II as Section Writers. Meanwhile, the un-official respondents and 9 others have filed O.A.No.62052 of 1990 and batch before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal claiming that they shall be continued in service on par with regular employees and during the pendency of the above OAs, the services of the un-official respondents and others were terminated by the petitioner. Subsequently, the OAs were dismissed. In view of the same, the petitioner has discontinued the services of the un-official respondents with effect from 21.8.1991. The un-official respondents having kept quiet for 13 years, raised I.D.Nos.223 and 224 of 2003 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and the same were transferred to Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and re-numbered as I.D.Nos.141 and 142 of 2005. After trial, the 3^rd respondent passed the award impugned in the writ petition directing the petitioner herein to re-instate the unofficial respondents into service afresh. Hence, the writ petition.

¶8

When the writ petition came up for consideration, Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of

¶9

this Court in W.P.No.15650 of 2003, dated 15-4-2008, wherein it is held as under:

¶10

“The Tribunal while dealing with the aspect as to whether the petitioner-Corporation is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and whether the 1^st respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act has elaborately dealt with the matter and while relying upon the judgment reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa^[1] held that the petitioner-management is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and the respondent is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. I am of the opinion that these are all settled principles of law. If the Municipal Corporation engages any person on daily wage or contingent basis, unless he is governed by the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution, he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, and Municipal Corporation is an ‘industry’. The Management has not asserted that the service conditions of the respondent-workmen are governed by the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution and, therefore, it is a civil post. Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner is an ’industry’ and the 1^st respondent is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act cannot be disturbed.

¶11

In so far as the finding that the respondentworkmen had worked for more than 240 days is concerned, there is no dispute about the same. Therefore, the findings recorded against point No.2 that there was a gross violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal.

¶12

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are devoid of

¶13

merits and are liable to be dismissed.”

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and following the judgment referred to supra, these writ petitions are also dismissed. No costs.

¶15

___________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J

¶16

rkk Dated : 9-12-2011

¶17

[1] 1978 SC 548

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Syed Moinuddin Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Syed Moinuddin Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pokala Veera Bhadra Rao and 26 Ors. Vs Gnrl Mngr. Andhra Bank Hyd and 2 Ors.

Md.Basheer, Vs The Divisional Manager

Smt. Akthari Begum Vs The Apsrtc.

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Mohd. Abdul Razzak

J.L.Srinivas Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

B.C.Adeppa, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh