Allowed

M/s. Sneha Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012WP/16968/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition in terms of a previous common order (W.P.No.11269 of 2009), directing the Government of A.P. to include 1% labour cess in estimates for works involving 10 or more workers and prohibiting deductions unless cess is included.

What did the court decide?

Direction to include 1% cess in estimates for works lasting over twelve months with 10+ workers; prohibition on deducting cess without inclusion in estimates.

M/s. Sneha Constructions, Rep. by its Managing… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.16968 of 2010

¶6

Between: M/s.Sneha Constructions, Rep.by its Managing Partner M.Narendra Babu and 9 others

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

The Government of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 62 others

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.17968 of 2010

¶14

O R D E R:

¶15

The petitioners pray that a direction be issued to the respondents to include 1% towards Labour Cess in all the works entrusted to the petitioner 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, dated 28.02.2008.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

¶17

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning, however, submits that since large number of cases are already pending in this Court, 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.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel at length.

¶19

The question, which came up for consideration in W.P.No.11269 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.

¶20

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:

¶21

(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

¶22

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

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.21403 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶26

Dated: 03.02.2012 Dsr

M/s. Sneha Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sneha Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner v. The Government of A.P.

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

Sri Mohd. Yahiya Qureshi Vs The Government of A.P.

Sindhu Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

B. Ravindra Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pasumarthi Bhaskara Sharma Vs The National Highways Authorities of India, rep. by its

P. Immam Khan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Satti Subba Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its