Dismissed

V. Sreedhar Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Mar 2012WP/26190/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Ashutosh Mohunta disposed of a writ petition seeking inclusion of 1% Labour Cess in government works. The court rejected the argument for an interim order, holding the issue was identical to a prior batch (WP No.11269 of 2009). The petition was disposed of in the same terms as that precedent, directing respondents to include the cess in estimates for long-duration works.

What did the court decide?

Order directing respondents to include 1% cess in estimates for works continued beyond 12 months with 10+ workers and to not deduct accordingly.

V. Sreedhar Reddy, Vs The Government of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

W.P.No.26190 of 2010

¶3

Date of Order: 07-03-2012

Between:

V.Sreedhar Reddy

..Petitioner

and

1. The Govt. Of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary,

¶9

Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

The Court made the following Order:

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

¶13

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶14

W.P.No.26190 of 2010

¶15

Oral order:

¶16

The petitioner prays 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/F8/98-4, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, 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 submitted that the controversy involved in the aforementioned judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4587 of 2008 and batch, dated 15-07-2008 is entirely different to the controversy involved in the case on hand. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that indeed on 10-02-2012 my learned Brother, Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohanrao allowed 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 allowed of in terms thereof.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel at length. Perused the case files. The question which came up for consideration in W.P.No.11269 of

¶21

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.33429 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

___________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 07-03-2012 Murthy

V. Sreedhar Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Sreedhar Reddy, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E. Narasimhulu, Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Sri Srinivas Waddera Labour Contract Co.operative Vs The Executive Engineer (Randb) Division

M/s Vijaya Vasava Motors Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Western Constructions, Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S. Datta Sai Constuctions Visakhapatnam Vs the Govt. of A.P. Fandp Dept. Hyd and 6 Othrs

G. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs The Government of A.P rep by its PRincipal Secretary