Allowed

M/s Patel Engineering Limited, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Feb 2012WP/10877/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to include 1% Labour Cess in project estimates. The court directed the Government to adhere to previous common orders pending in batch cases dealing with the same controversy regarding Labour Cess inclusion.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to include 1% cess in estimates for works with 10+ workers lasting over 12 months; no deduction unless included in estimates.

M/s Patel Engineering Limited, Vs The… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.10877 of 2010

¶6

Between: M/s.Patel Engineering Limited, Hyderabad, rep.by their Authorized Representative Mr.M.Venkatesh

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning (Works & Projects) Department, Secretariat Builings, Hyderabad and another

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.10877 of 2010

¶14

O R D E R:

¶15

The petitioner prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to include 1% towards Labour Cess in all the works entrusted to him and for all the payments made after 26.06.2007 as per Clause- (i) of U.O.No.4763/PFS/F8(A1)/98-4, Finance (Works & Projects) Department,

¶16

dated 28.02.2008.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch, dated 22.10.2009.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning, however, submits that since large number of cases are already pending in this Court and at most, only interim order may be passed and cases may not be disposed of in terms of W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch. He also referred to the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4587 of 2008 and batch, dated 15.07.2008.

¶19

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the controversy involved in the aforementioned judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4587 of 2008 and batch dated 15.07.2008 is concerned, the same is entirely different to the controversy involved in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that indeed on 10.02.2012 itself my learned Brother, Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao disposed of a large number of batch of cases being W.P.No.12911 of 2009 and batch involving the one and the same controversy in the case on hand and therefore, the present writ petition also be disposed of in terms thereof.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel at length.

¶21

The question, which came up for consideration in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch, and W.P.No.12911 of 2009 and batch, and the present writ petition, is absolutely one and the same. Hence, no purpose would be served by passing interim order now and thereafter disposing of the cases in terms of decision rendered in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶22

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch with the following directions:

¶23

(a) the respondents shall include 1% cess in the estimates for the works which they propose to undertake, if the work continues for or beyond twelve months and involves engagement of 10 workers or more; and

¶24

(b) the respondents shall not deduct any amount towards cess, unless the corresponding amount is included in the estimates.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.25171 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶28

Dated: 17.02.2012 Dsr

M/s Patel Engineering Limited, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Patel Engineering Limited, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Prathi Koteswara Rao Vs Mr. Jagan Mohan Rao

Laxmi Narayana Exporters, D.No.1-163,E-Block Vs Union of india., rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of

M/s.Taiko Chandernagar Chemicals Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Ivrcl-Infrastructures and Projects Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kuchu Pruthvi Kumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Smt. Gaadiraju Savithri Vs The Assistant General Manager