Disposed

Rtc Telangana Mazdoor Union, v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC9 Oct 2012WP/31511/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition concerning railway transport union members excluded from the voters list. Without adjudicating the claim, the court directed the corporation to consider the petitioners' representation within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners' representation, take a decision, and communicate it within one month.

Rtc Telangana Mazdoor Union, Vs A.P. State Road… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31511 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 09.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

RTC Telangana Mazdoor Union and others.

¶6

.. Petitioners. And

¶7

A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, and others.

¶8

.. Respondents.

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. A.K.Jayaprakash Rao & Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Standing Counsel for APSRTC

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Petitioners 2 to 4 are the members of petitioner No.1 Union. They have pleaded that they are working as Superintendents with respondent No.1 Corporation and the subscription payable to petitioner No.1 Union is being deducted by respondent No.1 from their salaries from time to time. Their grievance is that purporting to act on Circular No.PD-40/2010, dated 13.08.2010, respondent No.1 has excluded them from the voters’ list and thereby denying them of their right to participate in the future elections for petitioner No.1 Union. Feeling aggrieved by the said deletion, the petitioners are stated to have made a representation on 17.09.2012 to the Vice Chairman & Managing Director of respondent No.1 Corporation. The immediate grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 has not been considering the said representation.

¶14

At the hearing, Mr. C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that in pursuance of a direction given by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, respondent No.3, the names of petitioners 2 to 4 have been excluded from the voters’ list.

¶15

Inasmuch as the petitioners’ representation dated 17.09.2012 stated to have been given to respondent No.1 is pending, it is appropriate that he considers the same and takes a decision thereon

¶16

expeditiously.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners’ representation, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶18

As a sequel, WPMP.No.40200 of 2012,filed for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

¶20

09.10.2012 Note: Issue CC by 15.10.2012 B/o v v

Rtc Telangana Mazdoor Union, v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rtc Telangana Mazdoor Union, v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.S.R.a.P.Genco Employees Union, Vs The Apgenco

Sri Lakshmi Traders, Vs The District Collector

P.Liyakahat Vs Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer

Pathangi Janaiah, Vs The District Collector

M/s.Trimex Industries Pvt. Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

M/s.Trimex Industries Pvt. Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Mineral